Slate v. Saul, Record No. 3067.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 3067. |
| Citation | 185 Va. 700 |
| Parties | JAMES THOMAS SLATE AND CITIZENS RAPID TRANSIT CORPORATION v. VIOLA C. SAUL, ADMINISTRATRIX, ETC. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Present, Holt, C.J., and Hudgins, Gregory, Eggleston and Spratley, JJ.
1. AUTOMOBILES — Appeal and Error — Effect of Findings on Contributory Negligence, Last Clear Chance and Admissibility of Evidence — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent resulting from his automobile being struck by a bus, defendants contended that plaintiff's decedent was guilty of contributory negligence, that the doctrine of last clear chance was erroneously applied, and that the court committed reversible error in admitting certain challenged evidence. The jury were fully and clearly instructed upon contributory negligence and the doctrine of last clear chance and plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment.
Held: That since the jury resolved against defendants the Supreme Court of Appeals must approve their action unless it could say, as a matter of law, that plaintiff's decedent was guilty of contributory negligence, or that, as a matter of law, the doctrine of last clear chance was not applicable.
2. AUTOMOBILES — Contributory Negligence — Sufficiency of Evidence — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent resulting from his automobile being struck by a bus, the evidence showed that plaintiff's decedent was driving at a speed of from five to ten miles an hour, and it was presumed that he stopped in obedience to a sign before entering an intersecting road. From a careful consideration of the testimony of an eyewitness, the jury reasonably could have concluded that plaintiff's decedent had proceeded through the intersection, made a left turn and was proceeding on his side of the road when his automobile was struck by the bus. The driver of the bus had an unobstructed view of the intersection for more than 500 feet and the weather was clear and the road dry. The eyewitness also testified that the bus was 140 to 150 feet from the intersection when he first saw it and that it was moving at a terrific rate of speed.
Held: That the jury could have concluded that the sole proximate cause of the collision and the death of plaintiff's decedent was the negligent failure of the driver of the bus to drive on his right side of the road at a lawful rate of speed.
3. AUTOMOBILES — Last Clear Chance — Sufficiency of Evidence — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent resulting from his automobile being struck by a bus, the evidence showed that plaintiff's decedent was driving at a speed of from five to ten miles an hour, and it was presumed that he stopped in obedience to a sign before entering an intersecting road. The driver of the bus had an unobstructed view of the intersection for more than 500 feet and the weather was clear and the road dry. An eyewitness testified that the bus was 140 to 150 feet from the intersection when he first saw it and that it was moving at a terrific rate of speed.
Held: That the jury could have believed that plaintiff's decedent, while proceeding into the intersection at a slow rate of speed, did not have sufficient time to clear the way of the bus, but that the bus being 150 feet away at the time it approached the intersection, the driver had a last clear chance, in the exercise of the proper care, to slow down, or veer to the right, or perform some other act which would have saved plaintiff's decedent.
4. AUTOMOBILES — Driving into Intersection — Contributory Negligence. — A driver of an automobile may drive across an intersecting street in view of an approaching bus or other traffic, if it is consistent with ordinary prudence to do so, without being guilty of contributory negligence.
5. AUTOMOBILES — Driving into Intersection — Contributory Negligence — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent resulting from his automobile being struck by a bus, the evidence showed that plaintiff's decedent was driving at a speed of from five to ten miles an hour, and it was presumed that he stopped in obedience to a sign before entering an intersecting road. From a careful consideration of the testimony of an eyewitness, the jury reasonably could have concluded that plaintiff's decedent had proceeded through the intersection, made a left turn and was proceeding on his side of the road when his automobile was struck by the bus. The driver of the bus had an unobstructed view of the intersection for more than 500 feet and the weather was clear and the road dry. The eyewitness also testified that the bus was 140 to 150 feet from the intersection when he first saw it and that it was moving at a terrific rate of speed.
Held: That the evidence was such that reasonable men might differ as to whether a person of ordinary prudence would have entered the intersection under the existing circumstances, and consequently the verdict concluded the question of contributory negligence against the contention of defendants.
6. AUTOMOBILES — Last Clear Chance — Sufficiency of Evidence — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent resulting from his automobile being struck by a bus, the evidence showed that plaintiff's decedent was driving at a speed of from five to ten miles an hour, and it was presumed that he stopped in obedience to a sign before entering an intersecting road. The driver of the bus had an unobstructed view of the intersection for more than 500 feet and the weather was clear and the road dry. An eyewitness testified that the bus was 140 to 150 feet from the intersection when he first saw it and that it was moving at a terrific rate of speed.
Held: That if the driver of the bus saw deceased and had an opportunity to save him and failed to do so, this would have been sufficient to carry the question of the last clear chance to the jury. The same would apply even if the driver of the bus did not see the automobile of plaintiff's decedent. It was his duty to keep a lookout, and if he had done so, he would have been bound to have seen the automobile proceeding slowly into the intersection.
7. AUTOMOBILES — Admissibility of Evidence — Speed of Bus Some Distance from Accident — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent resulting from his automobile being struck by a bus, a witness testified that the bus was preceding him at a point one-half to three-quarters of a mile from the intersection where the collision occurred, and that he attempted to overtake and pass the bus but that the driver of the bus increased his speed and that the witness, though he reached a speed of 50 to 55 miles per hour, was unable to overtake and pass the bus. Defendants contended that this evidence was too remote, because the incident occurred 1.2 miles away from the intersection and because the witness failed to identify the bus.
Held: That the admissibility of evidence of this kind was a matter of discretion with the trial court, and unless it exercised an arbitrary discretion the Supreme Court of Appeals could not interfere.
8. AUTOMOBILES — Admissibility of Evidence — Speed of Bus Some Distance from Accident — Harmless Error — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent resulting from his automobile being struck by a bus, a witness testified that the bus was preceding him at a point one-half to three-quarters of a mile from the intersection where the collision occurred, and that he attempted to overtake and pass the bus but that the driver of the bus increased his speed and that the witness, though he reached a speed of 50 to 55 miles per hour, was unable to overtake and pass the bus. Defendants contended that this evidence was too remote, because the incident occurred 1.2 miles away from the intersection and because the witness failed to identify the bus. Plaintiff's case did not depend upon this evidence, since there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict without it.
Held: That the Supreme Court of Appeals would not reverse the judgment under the circumstances, even if it thought the admission of the testimony erroneous.
9. AUTOMOBILES — Admissibility of Evidence — Speed of Bus Some Distance from Accident — Identity of Bus — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent resulting from his automobile being struck by a bus, a witness testified that the bus was preceding him at a point one-half to three-quarters of a mile from the intersection where the collision occurred, and that he attempted to overtake and pass the bus but that the driver of the bus increased his speed and that the witness, though he reached a speed of 50 to 55 miles per hour, was unable to overtake and pass the bus. Defendants contended that this evidence was too remote, because the incident occurred 1.2 miles away from the intersection and because the witness failed to identify the bus. There was some conflict as to the identity of the bus, but the witness said the bus he had attempted to pass was the bus involved in the collision and identified it as follows: "But from all...
To continue reading
Request your trial