Shields v. Utah Light & Traction Co.
Decision Date | 13 September 1940 |
Docket Number | 6157 |
Citation | 99 Utah 307,105 P.2d 347 |
Parties | SHIELDS v. UTAH LIGHT & TRACTION CO |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; Roger I. McDonough, Judge.
Action by Millie Shields against the Utah Light & Traction Company a corporation, to recover for death of plaintiff's son in a traffic accident. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals and plaintiff filed a cross-appeal.
Reversed, and new trial granted.
Hougaard Shields & Shields, of Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Bagley Judd, Ray & Nebeker, of Salt Lake City, for respondent.
McDONOUGH, J., being disqualified, did not participate.
OPINION
This is an appeal from a money judgment in a damage action resulting from a traffic accident which caused death.
The accident took place on one of the main thoroughfares of Salt Lake City. The hour was 6:30 a. m., the weather fair, the streets dry, and only the two vehicles which collided were in the vicinity. The deceased was traveling west on his motorcycle at about 30 or 35 miles per hour. The bus was moving eastward at approximately 15 miles per hour. Both vehicles approached a semaphore controlled intersection showing "go" at about the same moment. The collision took place over on the north half of the street while the bus was executing a left turn. Respondent's theory was that the bus was cutting the corner, did not have the right of way, no signal was given, it was going too fast, and was not being operated under proper control. Appellant disputed these contentions and alleged that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence.
In instructing the jury the trial court included therein substantial copies of the pleadings of the parties. Instruction number one which set forth the allegations of the complaint occupies more than ten printed pages of the abstract. Sub-paragraphs four and five of this instruction (being the identical portions of the complaint) read as follows:
Instruction number four is as follows:
The first paragraphs of instructions numbered ten, eleven and twelve are as follows (the last paragraphs of these instructions make specific applications of the propositions set forth in the first paragraphs):
From the foregoing is will be observed that while the court cautioned the jury that "the foregoing instructions [referring to the pleadings] are not to be considered by the jury as a statement on the part of the court of the facts as proved in this case, but simply as a recital of what the plaintiff and defendant respectively claim to be the facts," yet in a following instruction the attention of the jury is specifically directed back to the only quoted copy of certain statutes and ordinances which appears in instruction one, in the following language:
"Elsewhere in these instructions certain laws relative to motor vehicle traffic are set forth" etc.
From this point of view the jury is told that the foregoing "merely set forth the claims of the parties as to the facts" but that this same instruction contains the law. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the plaintiff by copying into her complaint certain sections of our statute (with the hope, no doubt, that the trial judge would include the same in the instructions relating to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shepard v. Smith, 8013
...Denver & R. G. R. Co., 37 Utah 238, 107 P. 241; Ryan v. Beaver County, 82 Utah 27, 21 P.2d 858, 89 A.L.R. 1253; Shields v. Utah Light & Traction Co., 99 Utah 307, 105 P.2d 347; Anderson v. Nixon, 104 Utah 262, 139 P.2d 216; Dollarhide v. Gunstream, 55 N.M. 353, 233 P.2d 1042; Mt. Terry Min.......
-
Fowler v. Medical Arts Bldg.
... 188 P.2d 711 112 Utah 367 FOWLER v. MEDICAL ARTS BLDG. et al No. 6986 Supreme Court of ... P. 580; Davis v. Heiner, 54 Utah 428, 181 P. 587; ... Shields v. Utah Light & Traction Co., 99 Utah 307, ... 105 P.2d 347; Anderson ... ...
-
Devine v. Cook
...believe that, in the court's opinion, what he did or failed to do was of little consequence.' In the case of Shields v. Utah Light & Traction Co., 99 Utah 307, 105 P.2d 347, 349, in which the Court stated: 'The reiteration of given propositions to the jury in the instructions does not have ......
-
Clawson v. Walgreen Drug Co.
... 162 P.2d 759 108 Utah 577 CLAWSON v. WALGREEN DRUG CO. et al No. 6824 Supreme Court of ... of such loss without specially pleading it. Atwood ... v. Utah Light & R. Co. , 44 Utah 366, 140 P ... [108 ... Utah 588] In the ... 210; Everts v ... Worrell , 58 Utah 238, 197 P. 1043; Shields ... v. Utah Light & Traction Co. , 99 Utah 307, 105 P.2d ... 347. Of ... ...