Stone v. Reed
| Decision Date | 18 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 28380-28383,s. 28380-28383 |
| Citation | 247 S.W.2d 325 |
| Parties | STONE v. REED et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John F. Hanlon, St. Louis, for Estel Corneil Reed.
George A. Hodgman, Wm. J. McCluggage, St. Louis, for Roadway Express, Inc.
William J. Becker, Erwin Tzinberg, Clayton, Mo., for respondent.
This is an action by Alfred J. Stone, as plaintiff, against defendants, Estel Corneil Reed and Roadway Express, Inc., to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained on August 14, 1949, as the result of a collision at the intersection of Newstead Avenue and Page Boulevard in the City of St. Louis between an automobile driven by plaintiff and a tractor owned by defendant Roadway Express, Inc., and operated by defendant Reed. There was a verdict and judgment for $4,000 in favor of plaintiff against both defendants. Defendants have appealed.
The case was submitted to the jury on the the theory of primary negligence on the part of the driver of said tractor, said specification being that said defendant Reed operated said tractor (1) at a high, excessive and dangerous rate of speed under the circumstances, so as to endanger the life and property of the plaintiff; and (2) that defendant Reed negligently and carelessly failed to stop said tractor 'at the boulevard stop sign for eastbound traffic along Page Boulevard at Newstead Avenue * * *.'
Defendant Reed was an employee of defendant Roadway Express, Inc., and recovery against the latter was sought under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
The first point urged by appellants is that their respective motions for a directed verdict should have been sustained on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The accident occurred at about 11:15 p. m. on Sunday, August 14, 1949, within the intersection of Newstead Avenue and Page Boulevard. At the trial, the parties stipulated that 'Page Boulevard was, on August 14, 1949, an open public street in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, running east and west, and that Newstead Avenue was, on said date, an open public street in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, running north and south; that automobile traffic moving eastwardly on Page Boulevard was required, under the ordinances of said city, in full force on said date, to make a full stop at the west line of Newstead Avenue before proceeding eastwardly into the intersection of Page Boulevard and Newstead Avenue, and that by virtue of said ordinances there was, on said date, an octagonal sign, painted orange color, facing west on the south side of Page Boulevard, in plain view of eastbound traffic, containing the word 'STOP' in black letters; that automobile traffic moving southwardly on Newstead Avenue was required, under the ordinances of said city, in full force and effect on said date, to make a full stop at the north line of Page Boulevard before proceeding southwardly into the intersection of Newstead Avenue and Page Boulevard and that by virtue of said ordinances there was, on said date, an octagonal sign, painted orange color, facing north on the west side of Newstead Avenue, in plain view of southbound traffic, containing the word 'STOP' in black letters.'
Newstead Avenue has three traffic lanes, and Page Boulevard has six traffic lanes. At the time of the accident plaintiff was, and had been for several blocks, proceeding southwardly on Newstead Avenue, and defendant Reed was, and had been, proceeding east on Page Boulevard. Plaintiff was driving a Chevrolet automobile and riding with him was a friend, Mrs. Lillian Wilson. Defendant Reed was operating a White tractor truck, and with him was a friend, Kenneth Smithee.
Plaintiff testified as he approached Page Boulevard he decreased the speed of his car and came to a complete stop at the intersection. At that time plaintiff's car was in the traffic lane adjacent to the center line of the street. Plaintiff stated that when he stopped he had an unobstructed view west on Page Boulevard and observed the tractor of defendant Reed approaching the intersection from the west, four hundred or five hundred feet from said intersecting street.
Plaintiff testified:
Plaintiff further testified that when he stopped at the curb line the front wheels of his car were about fifty-five feet from the center of Page Boulevard. When first interrogated with reference to the speed of defendant's tractor as it approached the intersection, plaintiff declined to give an estimate, but stated:
* * *
* * *
'
Plaintiff testified that after seeing the tractor approaching he drove into the intersection and proceeded across same very slowly, at a speed not over six miles an hour; and that when he reached a point about one-fourth of the way across Page Boulevard, or about twenty-five feet from the north curb of Page Boulevard, he observed the tractor about 200 feet from his car. Plaintiff testified:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
Plaintiff further testified that he thereafter proceeded across the intersection and when he reached the center line of Page Boulevard applied the brake on his car. He stated, 'Well, I was right on the line and I stopped right there, on the spot.' Plaintiff further testified that defendant Reed did not bring his tractor to a stop at any time before the collision; that he (Reed) did not slow down or swerve in either direction 'until he saw me, when he was right on me, he swerved and throwed his rear wheels in next to me and caught me. * * * I was standing there more or less praying than anything else. * * * I stopped when I saw he wasn't going to make the stop * * * and I was standing dead still when he hit me.
'
Plaintiff further testified that at the moment of impact the left front wheel of his car was about two feet from the center line of Newstead and that the tractor was 'right along the center line of Page' with the front wheels 'I would say three or four feet from the center line of Newstead. * * * I had the wheels cut as much as I could when I stopped * * * cut so that when he hit me I drove with the car * * *. They were cut to the left * * * but not very much. I didn't have time to do a lot of cutting. I drew them to the left.
Plaintiff further testified that there was no traffic to the rear of the tractor except 'maybe a block away.' Plaintiff at no time sounded the horn on his car as he proceeded across the intersection.
The contention that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law is based upon the claim that after he knew that defendant Reed was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Fritz, 7980
...would have been charged with the legal obligation to take evasive action. Myers v. Karchmer, Mo., 313 S.W.2d 697, 704(8); Stone v. Reed, Mo.App., 247 S.W.2d 325, 329(2). But, plaintiff's duty as she proceeded into the intersection was to exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with......
-
Bates v. United States
...Peak v. W. T. Grant Co., 386 S.W.2d 685 (Mo.App.1964); Abel v. Campbell "66" Express, Inc., 378 S.W.2d 269 (Mo.App.1964); Stone v. Reed, 247 S.W.2d 325 (Mo.App. 1952); Miceli v. Williams, 293 S.W.2d 136 (Mo.App.1965).6 C. The 1974 Proviso To 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) The proviso to 28 U.S.C. § 26......
-
Myers v. Karchmer
...this record plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in any of the respects mentioned. See Stone v. Reed, Mo.App., 247 S.W.2d 325, 329; Sponsler v. Schroeder, Mo.App., 72 S.W.2d 150; Zumwalt v. Wabash R. Co., Mo.Sup., 302 S.W.2d 861, 862(2 & With reference to I......
-
Brannaker v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc., 52351
... ... v. Lavine, 6 Cir., 253 F.2d 254, 259(8); Van Hook v. Strassberger, Mo.App., 259 S.W.2d 399, 407(13--14); Stone v. Reed, Mo.App., 247 S.W.2d 325, 331--332(6--9); Gackstetter v. Dart Transit Co., 269 Minn. 146, 130 N.W.2d 326, 329(4); Schmidbauer v. Baltimore ... ...