Shelton v. Detamore, 4527
| Decision Date | 18 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 4527,4527 |
| Citation | 198 Va. 220,93 S.E.2d 314 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | S. W. SHELTON, JR. v. OSCAR T. DETAMORE, ET AL., ETC. Record |
Samuel W. Shelton, for the plaintiff in error.
Robert E. Taylor (Taylor & Deets, on brief), for the defendants in error.
This case followed upon a collision within an intersection in the city of Charlottesville between an automobile owned and operated by the plaintiff, S. W. Shelton, Jr., and a truck owned by the defendant partnership and operated by Oscar T. Detamore, one of the partners.
The action was begun in the Civil and Police Justice Court, where Shelton recovered a judgment against Detamore for $416.29 for damage to his car. Detamore appealed, the partners were made defendants and filed a counterclaim for damage to the truck. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendants for $545. We granted the plaintiff this writ of error.
The accident occurred in the intersection of Grady avenue and 14th street in the city. Grady avenue runs east and west and is a State designated and marked route through the city for U.S. Highway No. 250. It is 38 feet wide at the intersection. Fourteenth street enters Grady avenue from the south and ends a few feet north of the intersection. It is 24 feet wide at the intersection. The intersection was uncontrolled either by traffic light or sign, and immediately east of 14th street a hedge runs along the south side of Grady avenue high enough to obscure a vehicle approaching from the east on Grady from the view of a driver approaching from the south on 14th, and of course the view of a driver on Grady of a vehicle on 14th.
The collision happened about 7 p.m. on May 14, 1954. The sun set at 7:05 p.m. on that day. It had been raining and was drizzling at the time of the accident. The only material conflict in the evidence was as to visibility. Shelton testified that visibility was good for much more than three hundred feet. Detamore said it was poor and that an object could not be seen at a distance of three hundred feet. No other witness mentioned that subject.
Detamore was driving the truck north on 14th. Shelton, with a passenger beside him, was driving his car west in the right-hand lane of Grady. Both vehicles were running at about the same speed, twenty to twenty-five miles an hour. The front of the Shelton car struck the truck on the right side about the door and Detamore was thrown out. The place of collision was near the center line of 14th and two or three feet north of the center line of Grady. After the collision the car was headed west in the westbound lane of Grady, not far from the northwest corner of the intersection; and the truck was on the east side of 14th, a little north of the intersection. Two police officers of Charlottesville came to the scene after the accident and testified as to the position of the vehicles. They did not give the time of their arrival but one said it was about dark.
The plaintiff Shelton was driving with parking lights on. He testified that when he was in the intersection suddenly he saw the truck crossing the intersection from his left at a speed about equal to his own; that he immediately applied his brakes but was too close to avoid the collision. He did not recall lights on the defendants' truck, but some of the cars in traffic were driving with headlights on and some with parking lights. His companion testified he did not see the truck until it was about twenty feet from the point of collision and that the speed of each vehicle was twenty to twenty-five miles an hour.
Detamore was the only witness for the defendants. He testified that he lived a few miles from Charlottesville and was familiar with the city; that he left home about 6 to 6:30 p.m. and turned on his headlights when he started; that he drove along 14th street heading north onto Grady; that when he approached Grady he thought he was approaching the intersection of Gordon avenue and 14th street; that he did not stop before entering Grady; that before entering he looked both ways, saw two cars, one going east which passed the intersection before he entered, and one going west about a block east of the intersection, both with headlights on; that he entered and proceeded across Grady in second gear and did not see the Shelton car until after the collision. He did not testify as to his speed across the intersection and did not question the testimony for the plaintiff that the two vehicles were traveling at about the same speed.
On this evidence, which is all there is in the record that is material, we think the conclusion is required that Detamore was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Section 46-238 of the Code provides: 'When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right, . . .' with exceptions not here applicable. Shelton was the driver of the vehicle on the right. Under the uncontradicted evidence the two vehicles approached the intersection and started across it at about the same speed, twenty to twenty-five miles an hour. There is no conflict on the point that they collided very near the center of the intersection. The Shelton car had traveled 19 feet in the intersection to the point of collision. The Detamore truck traveled 12 to 15 feet in the intersection to reach that point. Under the generally accepted rule, at twenty miles an hour each vehicle would travel about thirty feet a second, and at twenty-five miles an hour about thirty-seven and one-half feet a second. Cf. Hardiman v. Dyson, 194 Va. 116, 119, 72 S.E.2d 361, 363. It follows that when Detamore reached the intersection the Shelton car was either in the intersection or so close to it as to leave no question that the two vehicles approached the intersection at approximately the same time. Shelton, therefore, had the right of way.
Not only was it Detamore's duty in this situation to yield the right of way to the Shelton car, but the exercise of reasonable care required that he take into account the hedge on his right along the south side of Grady avenue which obstructed his view of traffic approaching on that street from the east and called for the exercise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. Sonneman
...60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 284c, p. 667; 5a Am.Jur. 678 and 685, Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 705, § 712; Shelton v. Detamore, 198 Va. 220, 93 S.E.2d 314; Kerns v. Lewis, 246 Mich. 423, 224 N.W. 647; Barajas v. Parker, 165 Neb. 444, 85 N.W.2d 894.' 84 Idaho at 562, 375 P.2d at Anent de......
-
Drury v. Palmer
...60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 284c, p. 667; 5A Am.Jur. 678 and 685, automobiles and Highway Traffic § 705, § 712; Shelton v. Detamore, 198 Va. 220, 93 S.E.2d 314; Kerns v. Lewis, 246 Mich. 423, 224 N.W. 647; Barajas v. Parker, 165 Neb. 444, 85 N.W.2d 894. Even if the jury determined that appel......
-
Sayre v. Shields
...from the duty of keeping a reasonable lookout and otherwise exercising ordinary care to avoid a collision. Shelton v. Detamore, 198 Va. 220, 225, 93 S.E.2d 314, 317 (1956); Yellow Cab Co. v. Eden, 178 Va. 325, 341, 16 S.E.2d 625, 631 (1941); Johnson v. Harrison, 161 Va. 804, 808, 172 S.E. 2......
-
Carter v. Garner
...insisting upon the right of way, drive heedlessly into the path of another rapidly oncoming vehicle.' See also Shelton v. Detamore, 198 Va. 220, 225, 93 S.E.2d 314, 317. Whether the defendant was guilty of negligence which was a proximate or concurring cause of the accident was a question f......