Sturgis v. Garrett
| Decision Date | 07 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 9215,9215 |
| Citation | 379 P.2d 658,85 Idaho 364 |
| Parties | Raymond E. STURGIS and F. H. McClure and R. V. Estell, doing business as Empire Transport, a co-partnership, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William GARRETT and Carl Garrett, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Moffatt & Thomas, Boise, for appellants.
Marcus & Evans, Boise, for respondents.
On the morning of June 23, 1960, the defendant, Carl Garrett, age 14, was driving a farm tractor in a southerly direction on U. S. Highway 30 in Payette County, Idaho. On that same date a White Freightliner truck, towing two trailers loaded with cement was proceeding in the same direction behind the tractor. The truck was owned by the plaintiffs, F. H. McClure and R. V. Estell, doing business as Empire Transport, a co-partnership, and was driven by the plaintiff, Raymond E. Sturgis. As the driver of the truck attempted to pass the tractor, the vehicles collided, injuring both drivers and damaging the vehicles.
Subsequently, this action was commenced to recover damages to the truck and trailers and for personal injuries suffered by Sturgis in the accident. The complaint alleges that Carl Garrett was inexperienced and therefore not competent to operate a motor vehicle on the highway; that the defendant, William Garrett, father of the driver and owner of the tractor, had full knowledge of the fact that his son was not competent to operate the vehicle upon said highway; that the defendant willingly and knowingly permitted his son, Carl Garrett, to drive the vehicle upon said highway; and that the negligent operation of the tractor by Carl Garrett proximately caused the collision and damages resulting therefrom. Defendants answered, denying negligence on the part of Carl Garrett and claiming the negligence of Raymond Sturgis contributed to and was the proximate cause of the collision and resultant damages.
At the trial Carl Garrett testified he was driving the tractor on the right side of the highway, enroute to a neighboring farm at the time of the accident. He stated that to turn onto the side road leading to that farm it was necessary to make a left turn across the highway; that he was approaching this side road but had not started to make the left turn at the time of the collision; that he had not observed traffic behind him while driving the tractor; and that he did not see the truck or become aware of the impending collision until he noticed a 'blur' on his left. This minor defendant further testified that he had driven along this highway to the same farm several times and that it was his practice while making this trip to keep to the right of the highway until he reached the side road, at which time he usually came to a full stop before making the left turn and crossing the highway.
Raymond Sturgis, the driver of the truck, stated that he first observed the tractor when it was some distance from him. At that time, he stated that a car was traveling in the same direction between the truck and the tractor. He further testified that he slowed the truck down to a speed of about 40 miles per hour and maintained such speed until after the car had passed the tractor, and that he then increased the speed of the truck and steered onto the left side of the highway and started to pass the tractor when the collision occurred, and that Carl Garrett failed to give any signal indicating a left turn. Sturgis claims that Carl Garrett was in a standing position while driving the tractor. Due to injuries received in the accident, Sturgis was unable to recall any additional facts concerning the accident.
The testimony of other witnesses at the trial established that when the vehicles collided, the hub on the left rear wheel of the tractor broke and the wheel became disconnected from the tractor, causing that part of the hub attached to the tractor to fall to the pavement, making 'gouges' therein. These 'gouges' were on the right hand side of the white dividing line near the center of the highway. The rim on the disconnected rear wheel was damaged, but not the tire. The front portion of the left rear fender on the tractor was damaged as was the steering wheel, gas tank, hood and radiator cowling.
Testimony of witnesses indicates that the right front portion of the truck came in contact with the tractor. Paint from the hood of the tractor was claimed to be found on the right front fender of the truck.
P...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dillon
...McMahan, 57 Idaho 240, 250-251, 65 P.2d 156 (1937); State v. Ramirez, 33 Idaho 803, 809-810, 199 P. 376 (1921).44 Sturgis v. Garrett, 85 Idaho 364, 368, 379 P.2d 658 (1963); see C. McCormick, Law of Evidence § 11 at 22-24 (1954); cf. Bean v. Diamond Alkali Co., 93 Idaho 32, 454 P.2d 69 (196......
-
Petersen v. Parry
...therefrom, the cause should be submitted to the jury.' Bancroft v. Smith, 80 Idaho 63, 323 P.2d 879 (1958); Cf. Sturgis v. Garrett, 85 Idaho 364, 379 P.2d 658 (1963). It is axiomatic, that the plaintiffs in a tort action founded upon the alleged negligence of a defendant must prove by a pre......
-
State v. Griffiths
.... . . .' " Id. at 34-35, 454 P.2d at 71-72 (citing Greenstreet v. Greenstreet, 65 Idaho 36, 139 P.2d 239 (1943); Sturgis v. Garrett, 85 Idaho 364, 379 P.2d 658 (1963)). The question, then, is whether psychiatry is a "skill or knowledge beyond the competence of the average layman," making ps......
-
State v. Williams
...facts by the exercise of their own judgment and reasoning powers without hearing the opinions of witnesses. Sturgis v. Garrett, 85 Idaho 364, 368, 379 P.2d 658, 660 (1960) (quoting with approval 20 Am.Jur. Evidence, § 765, pp. 635-56). In this case, the tools upon which paint allegedly was ......