Smith v. Carpenter
| Decision Date | 23 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 4500,4500 |
| Citation | 92 S.E.2d 275,198 Va. 91 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | RAY ERWIN SMITH v. HURLEY CARPENTER. Record |
Preston P. Taylor (Taylor, Gustin & Harris on brief), for the plaintiff in error.
John S. Rixey (Rixey & Rixey on brief), for the defendant in error.
Carpenter secured a jury verdict against Smith for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident. Smith's motion that the verdict be set aside on the ground that the evidence disclosed that Carpenter was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law was overruled and judgment entered on the verdict. To review the ruling we granted Smith a writ of error.
The sole question presented is: Was Carpenter guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law?
The case involved a collision between two passenger vehicles. The accident occurred in the daytime, at the intersection of Sheppard and Helen streets in the city of Norfolk. Sheppard street runs east and west and Helen street runs north and south. Carpenter was driving his Chevrolet car east on Sheppard street and Smith was driving his Ford station wagon north on Helen street.
There were no traffic signs or controls at the intersection. The speed limit was 25 miles an hour. The ground was level and the intersection open, the vision of both drivers being unobstructed.
Carpenter testified that as he approached the intersection he was traveling at 15 miles per hour. When he reached a point about 50 feet from the intersection he saw Smith's station wagon approaching on Helen street approximately 150 feet south of the intersection. At the time he saw the station wagon it appeared to be traveling at a reasonable rate of speed. Thinking he had time to negotiate the intersection, he proceeded and undertook to cross. After entering the intersection he saw the on-coming station wagon for the second time and noted that it was bearing down upon him at a rapid rate of speed estimated at 50 miles per hour. His car was struck on the extreme rear end of the right side, just before it cleared the intersection. No other traffic was involved and there was ample room for the station wagon to pass to the rear of the Carpenter car.
Smith testified that he could not stop as the street was wet. However, Carpenter testified to the contrary, stating that at the time of the accident the street was dry and that no rain fell until after the accident. Carpenter further testified that he had not increased his speed (15 miles per hour) as he thought he had ample time to negotiate the intersection. Smith testified that he knew the speed limit was 25 miles per hour and that at the time of the accident he was traveling between 25 and 30 miles per hour. Each of the streets involved was approximately 18 to 20 feet in width.
In this jurisdiction the law is well settled to the effect that questions of negligence, contributory negligence, and proximate cause are ordinarily questions for the jury, and that if reasonable men may differ as to their conclusions on any such question then the jury is the proper tribunal to decide the issue. Steele v. Crocker, 191 Va. 873, 880, 62 S.E.2d 850, 853.
Smith's negligence is conceded; the doctrine of contributory negligence implies negligence upon the part of the person causing the injury....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindberg v. Goode
...560, 69 S.E.2d 424, 427.2 Mouser v. Griffith, 198 Va. 709, 96 S.E.2d 98; Rhoades v. Meadows, 189 Va. 558, 54 S.E.2d 123; Smith v. Carpenter, 198 Va. 91, 92 S.E.2d 275; Dodd v. Coakley, 195 Va. 554, 79 S.E.2d 648; Bogstad v. Hope, 199 Va. 453, 100 S.E.2d ...
-
Smith v. New Dixie Lines, Inc.
...or efficiently contributing cause of the accident, then the jury is the proper tribunal to decide the issue. Smith v. Carpenter, 198 Va. 91, 92, 92 S.E.2d 275, 277; Steele v. Crocker, 191 Va. 873, 880, 62 S.E.2d 850, All the defendants argue that the evidence given by the plaintiff's witnes......
-
Washburn v. Dana
...proper care for his own safety or was guilty of contributory negligence barring his recovery was a question for the jury. Smith v. Carpenter, 198 Va. 91, 92 S.E.2d 275; Danner v. Cunningham, 194 Va. 142, 72 S.E.2d 354; Burke v. Scott, 192 Va. 16, 63 S.E.2d 740; Reese v. Snelson, 192 Va. 479......
-
Stevens v. Summers
...be submitted to the jury under proper instructions. * * *.' See Carner, Adm'r v. Hendrix, 205 Va. 24, 135 S.E.2d 113; Smith v. Carpenter, 198 Va. 91, 92, 92 S.E.2d 275; Spiegelman v. Birch, Adm'r, 204 Va. 96, 99, 129 S.E.2d 119; Doss v. Martin, 205 Va. 306, 309, 136 S.E.2d 854; Allen v. Bro......