Shideler v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 25 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47457,47457 |
| Citation | 292 So.2d 155 |
| Parties | Robert K. SHIDELER, Administrator of the Estate of Jana Lee Shideler, Deceased v. Joe W. TAYLOR, Administrator of the Estate of Clinton Luther, Deceased, and Forrest R. Tuttle, Administrator of the Estate of Michael L. Stowe, Deceased. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
McClure, McClure & May, Sardis, for appellant.
Mitchell, McNutt & Bush, wade H. Lagrone, L. F. Sams, Jr., Tupelo, for appellees.
This is a personal injury action growing out of an automobile accident. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Panola County, Mississippi, in a suit brought against the estates of the deceased drivers of two colliding automobiles, Clinton Luther and Michael L. Stowe. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellant in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), but upon the motion of the administrator of the estate of Michael L. Stowe, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant Stowe estate.
This is what occurred: Jana Lee Shideler and Michael L. Stowe were distance behind Stowe.
U.S. Interstate Highway 55 at the point of the accident is divided into two double lanes for highway traffic, with a grassy median between them sixty (60) feet wide. South of the area of the accident both double lanes cross bridges. At the time of the accident, Stowe was driving on the east side of the west double traffic lane.
As Stowe approached from the north, Clinton Luther crossed the bridge on the east double lane of U.S. Interstate Highway 55, going north. He was driving 'pretty fast' (seventy or better) and for some unexplained reason, his automobile left the east double lane and crossed the median strip between the two double lanes of traffic and turned north on the southbound east lane of the west double highway, meeting Stowe as he drove his automobile south. The two automobiles collided somewhere in the east lane of the west southbound strip of pavement. The two cars made contact 'driver to driver', or left side to left side. Both drivers were killed instantly. Miss Shideler received compound fractures and serious internal bruises. She was taken to a Memphis hospital where she later died.
The suit for the wrongful death of Miss Shideler against the estate of Clinton Luther was not contested, and judgment was entered against his estate. The suit against the estate of Michael L. Stowe is based upon the theory that he was negligent in not avoiding, or attempting to avoid, the accident. It is said that he saw, or should have seen, the approaching automobile driven by Clinton Luther, and it was his duty to take some action to avoid the collision; and that having failed to do so, he contributed to the injury and death of Miss Shideler, for which his estate is liable in damages.
We agree with appellant's contention that as a general rule of law-in this state and most of the other states-it is the duty of a driver of an automobile to keep a reasonable lookout in the direction in which he is going for obstructions in the highway, for other vehicles, and for pedestrians. 60A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 284(1), at 141 (1969). 1
It is his duty to see that which is in plain view, open, and apparent; to take notice of an obvious danger; and to be on the alert so as to avoid a collision with objects, vehicles, and others using the highway. Moreover, it is the duty of the driver of an automobile to take reasonably proper steps to avoid an accident or injury to persons and property after having knowledge of the danger. 2
If one fails to keep a proper lookout as a reasonable and prudent automobile driver, he is negligent. If his negligence causes or contributes to the injury of person or property, he is liable in damages. 3
This, then, is the general rule, but there are certain considerations that may be importaint in determining liability of one who is charged with negligence because of failure to observe a danger which results in injury. In the first place, an automobile driver is not an insurer of persons injured in an accident occurring while he is driving his automobile. It is only when he is negligent-in failing to perform some duty required of him by law or custom and his negligence causes or contributes to the injury of persons or property-that he becomes liable in damages to the injured person.
In the next place, one who is confronted with a sudden emergency and imminent peril, not of his own making, is only required to exercise ordinary care under the stress of the surrounding circumstances to avoid an accident, and where he does not have sufficient time in which to determine with certainty the best course to pursue, he is not held to the same coolness of judgment or degree of care as is required of one having ample opportunity for full exercise of judgment. 60A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 257, at 66 (1969). 4
After a careful examination of the testimony and study of the record in the instant case, we cannot say that the trial judge was incorrect in granting a judgment in favor of the estate of Michael L. Stowe for the following reasons.
The facts in the instant case are similar to the facts developed in Capitol Tobacco & Specialty Company v. Runnels, 221 So.2d 703 (Miss.1969). In that case three young men were in an automobile en route from Mendenhall to Braxton, Mississippi. They were traveling on U.S. Interstate Highway 49, which is a four-lane highway. Two lanes of the highway are for northbound traffic and two lanes are for southbound traffic. These lanes are separated by a median space thirty (30) feet wide. The travelers came to a crossover from the east northbound double traffic lane to the west southbound double traffic lane. Just as they crossed to their left over to the east lane, their vehicle's 'motor died'. They turned their car, a Chevrolet Corvair, downhill going north on the southbound double lane pavement. The automobile motor began to operate and instead of going to a crossover a short distance north, they turned into and crossed the median. Their wheels were spinning in the grass until they reached the east lane of pavement when it is said their wheels caught and the car 'jumped out' into the path of another automobile, causing the death of one of the occupants of the crossing Chevrolet automobile.
In the Capitol case, supra, it was contended (as it is here) that the driver of the car belonging to Capitol Tobacco & Specialty Company should have anticipated that something...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne v. Gowdy
...alert on the highway, and avoid striking plain objects. Barkley v. Miller Transporters, Inc., 450 So.2d 416 (Miss.1984) ; Shideler v. Taylor, 292 So.2d 155 (Miss.1974).Bolden, 606 So.2d at 113–14 (emphasis added). While Bolden states that the driver has an “absolute” duty to see what he sho......
-
Thompson v. Holliman
...property after having knowledge of [a] danger.’ " Prewitt v. Vance , 16 So. 3d 37, 40 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Shideler v. Taylor , 292 So. 2d 155, 156-57 (Miss. 1974) ); Coleman v. Lehman , 649 F. Supp. 363, 366 (N.D. Miss. 1986) (in a parking lot case, a Mississippi federal court ob......
-
Utz v. Running & Rolling Trucking, Inc.
...alert on the highway, and avoid striking plain objects. Barkley v. Miller Transporters, Inc., 450 So.2d 416 (Miss.1984); Shideler v. Taylor, 292 So.2d 155 (Miss. 1974). Bolden, 606 So.2d at 113-14 (emphasis added). While Bolden states that the driver has an "absolute" duty to see what he sh......
-
Ready v. RWI Transp., LLC
...on the highway, and avoiding striking plain objects. Barkley v. Miller Transporters, Inc. , 450 So.2d 416 (Miss.1984) ; Shideler v. Taylor , 292 So.2d 155 (Miss.1974).Dennis By and Through Cobb v. Bolden , 606 So.2d 111, 113–14 (Miss. 1992). In Robison v. McDowell , 247 So.2d 686, 689 (Miss......