Sullivan v. Laman, 19971
| Decision Date | 01 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 19971,19971 |
| Parties | Kaye M. B. SULLIVAN, Plaintiff in Error, v. Roy T. LAMAN, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
James H. Rogers, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Yegge, Hall & Shulenburg, Raymond J. Connell, Denver, for defendant in error.
The trial court over timely and appropriate objection gave an instruction to the jury defining so-called 'unavoidable accident.' We conclude that under the circumstances of the case it was error to so do, and accordingly the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a second trial.
The action stems from an automobile collision which occurred on March 24, 1960 at about 5:10 P.M. on East 14th Avenue between Lafayette and Humboldt Streets in Denver. Sullivan was proceeding in an easterly direction on East 14th Avenue (a one-way street) in the center lane. 'The '5 o'clock' traffic was extremely heavy and as she neared Humboldt Street she noted that all traffic in her lane was coming to a stop. Sullivan explained that the reason for this stopping of all traffic in her lane was that 'the light on Franklin Street [at East 14th Avenue] was red and of course the cars were all held back to that point.' Accordingly, Sullivan stopped her vehicle and moments later while in this stopped position her car was struck in the rear-end by the Laman driven vehicle, which was also traveling in an easterly direction on East 14th Avenue in the center lane. The impact between the frontend of the Laman automobile and the rearend of the Sullivan car pushed the Sullivan vehicle forward and into the rear-end of the car in front of her, which in turn was driven by one Adams. The reasonable cost of repairing the Sullivan auto was said to be $522.
Adams testified that she noted the second car ahead of her stop suddenly and that the car immediately ahead of her then also stopped, as did she, and that the driver in each instance was able to stop without striking the car immediately ahead. Adams testified that Sullivan also successfully stopped her vehicle, but that thereafter she heard a crash when the Laman vehicle struck the rear-end of the Sullivan vehicle.
Laman testified that he was driving in an easterly direction on East 14th Avenue approaching Humboldt Street and that 'when there was a quick confusion in the traffic' he put on his brakes 'as quickly as he possible could' but nonetheless still collided with the Sullivan car. Laman stated that a car up ahead was trying to make an illegal left-hand turn off East 14th Avenue from the center lane and that this caused the 'confusion' referred to by him.
Based on this occurrence Sullivan sued Laman for $72,000, alleging that she suffered personal injury and property damage as the result of Laman's negligence. Laman admitted the accident, denied any negligence on his part, accused Sullivan of contributory negligence and pled unavoidable accident.
Over objection the trial court instructed the jury on unavoidable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Alvey, 30785
...v. Plants (1958), 84 Ariz. 211, 216, 326 P.2d 36, 39; Gray v. Woods (1958), 84 Ariz. 87, 94, 324 P.2d 220, 224; Sullivan v. Laman (1962), 150 Colo. 542, 544, 375 P.2d 92, 93; Dietz v. Mead, Delaware (1960), 52 Del. 481, 160 A.2d 372, 375; Sirmons v. Pittman (1962), Fla.App., 138 So.2d 765, ......
-
Cavanaugh v. Jepson
...care. For cases with similar factual situations in which the unavoidable accident instruction was held improper, see Sullivan v. Laman, 150 Colo. 542, 375 P.2d 92, 93; Elder v. Marvel Roofing Co., 74 N.M. 357, 393 P.2d 463, 465; Matthews v. Hicks, 197 Va. 112, 87 S.E.2d 629, As said in Tyre......
-
Sadorus v. Wood
...Oatman v. Frey, 108 Ohio App. 72, 160 N.E.2d 664 (1958). 5. Zerbinos v. Lewis, 394 P.2d 886, 891 (Alaska 1964); Sullivan v. Laman, 150 Colo. 542, 375 P.2d 92 (1962); Dorn v. Butts, 46 Misc.2d 953, 260 N.Y.S.2d 468 (1965); Elder v. Marvel Roofing Co., 74 N.M. 357, 393 P.2d 463 (1965); Meinen......
-
Intermill v. Heumesser
...based would be reversible error. Carr v. Boyd, 123 Colo. 350, 229 P.2d 659; Herdt v. Darbin, 126 Colo. 355, 249 P.2d 822; Sullivan v. Laman, 150 Colo. 542, 375 P.2d 92. Defendant attacks the verdict on two grounds: (a) That the damages were not supported by the evidence and (b) that the ver......