Temple v. Ellington, Record No. 2267.
| Decision Date | 13 January 1941 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 2267. |
| Citation | 177 Va. 134 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | SALLIE B. TEMPLE, ET AL. v. MARY ELLINGTON. |
Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Hudgins, Gregory, Eggleston and Spratley, JJ.
1. NEW TRIALS — Appeal and Error — Restoration of Verdict Erroneously Set Aside. — If the trial court is in error in setting aside a verdict and awarding a new trial, the Supreme Court of Appeals will restore that verdict, enter judgment thereon and annul all subsequent proceedings
2. AUTOMOBILES — Collision — Questions of Law and Fact — Proximate Cause — Evidence Necessary to Present Jury Question — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between an automobile in which she was riding and a truck driven by defendants' intestate, the collision occurred just after defendants' intestate had entered the public highway from a private road. A verdict for defendants was set aside by the trial court. It held that the conduct of defendants' intestate, as a matter of law, constituted negligence which, concurring with that of the driver of the automobile, was the proximate cause of the injuries to plaintiff, and therefore awarded a new trial to be had on the question of damages alone.
Held: That if there was more than a scintilla of credible evidence tending to establish that the sole proximate cause of the injuries to plaintiff was the negligence of the driver of the car in which she was riding, then a jury question was presented.
3. AUTOMOBILES — Collision — Questions of Law and Fact — Proximate Cause — Evidence Making Question One for Court — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between an automobile in which she was riding and a truck driven by defendants' intestate, the collision occurred just after defendants' intestate had entered the public highway from a private road. A verdict for defendants was set aside by the trial court. It held that the conduct of defendants' intestate, as a matter of law, constituted negligence which, concurring with that of the driver of the automobile, was the proximate cause of the injuries to plaintiff, and therefore awarded a new trial to be had on the question of damages alone.
Held: That if all of the credible and substantial evidence showed that defendant's intestate was guilty of such negligence as was the proximate cause or the efficiently contributing or concurring cause of plaintiff's injuries, then the question was for the court and not for the jury.
4. AUTOMOBILES — Right of Way — Section 2154(124) of the Code of 1936 — To Be Given Reasonable Construction. — Section 2154(124) of the Code of 1936, providing that the driver of a vehicle before entering a public highway from a private road shall stop and shall yield the right of way to vehicles approaching on the public highway, must be given a reasonable construction.
5. AUTOMOBILES — Right of Way — Section 2154(124) of the Code of 1936 — Does Not Grant Exclusive Privilege to Drivers on Highway. — Section 2154(124) of the Code of 1936, providing that the driver of a vehicle before entering a public highway from a private road shall stop and shall yield the right of way to vehicles approaching on the public highway, does not grant an exclusive privilege to drivers on the public highway regardless of their duty to obey traffic laws and to exercise reasonable care to protect the rights of others.
6. AUTOMOBILES — Negligence — Entering Highway from Private Road after Stopping and Looking. — When a driver on a private road approaches an intersection, stops, and looks in both directions for approaching traffic on the public highway, acting as a reasonably prudent person exercising due care would act, he is not negligent as a matter of law if he attempts to enter the intersection under the belief that he has time and opportunity to cross safely.
7. AUTOMOBILES — Right of Way — Section 2154(124) of the Code of 1936 — To Whom Driver on Private Road Required to Yield Right of Way. — Under section 2154(124) of the Code of 1936, providing that the driver of a vehicle entering a public highway from a private road shall stop and shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the public highway, the driver on a private road is only required to yield the right of way to those lawfully approaching so near the intersection that he cannot safely enter it.
8. AUTOMOBILES — Right of Way — Forfeiture by Driver Traveling at Unlawful Speed. — The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed forfeits any right of way which he might otherwise have.
9. AUTOMOBILES — Collision — Intersection of Highway and Private Road — Presumption that Driver Stopped before Entering Highway — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between the automobile in which she was riding and a truck driven by defendant's intestate, the collision occurred at a point on the highway where a private road intersected such highway. Defendant's intestate entered the highway from the private road, and there was no testimony as to whether or not he stopped before entering the intersection.
Held: That the presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, was that defendant's intestate did stop and that he looked for oncoming traffic.
10. AUTOMOBILES — Collision — Intersection of Highway and Private Road — Assumption of Encounter with Vehicle Operated at Excessive Speed Not Required — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between an automobile in which she was riding and a truck driven by defendants' intestate, the collision occurred just after defendants' intestate had entered the public highway from a private road. The driver of the automobile in which plaintiff was riding testified that his car was only about thirty-three feet from the intersection when the truck drove into it, but the tire marks on the highway made by this witness' car extended thirty-nine feet from the point of impact, and another witness testified that the automobile was more than three hundred feet from the intersection at the time defendants' intestate drove into the highway. The driver of the automobile said that he was driving at from forty to forty-five miles an hour, but the force of the impact drove the truck forty-seven feet back in the opposite direction and turned it over, and the automobile after the impact moved in an arc for thirty-seven feet down the highway before it stopped.
Held: That while the driver of the automobile on the highway had the right of way at the intersection if he were proceeding lawfully, defendants' intestate did not have to assume that he would encounter any vehicle being operated at an excessive speed.
11. AUTOMOBILES — Collision — Intersection of Highway and Private Road — Questions of Law and Fact — Whether Driver on Private Road Justified in Going into Highway — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between an automobile in which she was riding and a truck driven by defendants' intestate, the collision occurred just after defendants' intestate had entered the public highway from a private road. The driver of the automobile in which plaintiff was riding testified that his car was only about thirty-three feet from the intersection when the truck drove into it, but the tire marks on the highway made by this witness' car extended thirty-nine feet from the point of impact, and another witness testified that the automobile was more than three hundred feet from the intersection at the time defendants' intestate drove into the highway. The driver of the automobile said that he was driving at from forty to forty-five miles an hour, but the force of the impact drove the truck forty-seven feet back in the opposite direction and turned it over, and the automobile after the impact moved in an are for thirty-seven feet down the highway before it stopped.
Held: That whether defendants' intestate was justified in going into the highway under the circumstances was for the jury.
12. AUTOMOBILES — Collision — Speed — Presumption of Excessive Speed from Force of Impact — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between an automobile in which she was riding and a truck driven by defendant's intestate, the collision occurred just after defendants' intestate had entered the public highway from a private road. The driver of the automobile in which plaintiff was riding testified that he was only about thirty-three feet from the intersection when defendants' intestate drove into it, yet the tire marks on the highway made by his car extended thirty-nine feet from the point of impact, and another witness testified that the automobile on the highway was more than three hundred feet from the intersection when defendants' intestate drove into the highway. The driver of the automobile testified that he was driving at from forty to forty-five miles an hour, but the force of the impact drove the truck forty-seven feet back in the opposite direction and turned it over on its side. The automobile after the impact moved in an arc for thirty-seven feet down the highway before it stopped.
Held: That an inference of excessive speed on the part of the driver of the automobile on the highway might be drawn from the force of the impact and the damage to the vehicles even though that driver testified that he was driving at a lawful speed.
13. AUTOMOBILES — Collision — Questions of Law and Fact — Proximate Cause — Collision at Intersection of Highway and Private Road — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between an automobile in which she was riding and a truck driven by defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arena
...to yield the right of way to those lawfully approaching so near the intersection that he cannot safely enter it.' Temple v. Ellington, 177 Va. 134, 12 S.E.2d 826, 828. On the evidence, the question of whether or not the proximity of the oncoming traffic required Karlstad to yield the right ......
-
Cope v. Thompson
... ... react you got on the brakes.' Relating these assurances to the record, the triers of the facts could have found that eastbound defendant saw the ... Jamison Oil Co., 205 Va. 1, 135 S.E.2d 153, 156(4) (1964), Temple v. Ellington, 177 Va. 134, 12 S.E.2d 826, 828--829(3, 6) (1941); Pandell ... ...
-
Johnson v. Bush
...v. Arena, 46 Haw. 315, 379 P.2d 594, 603(8--10); Peterson v. Lang, 239 Minn. 319, 58 N.W.2d 609, 612--613(4--6); Temple v. Ellington, 177 Va. 134, 12 S.E.2d 826, 828--829(5)(6). In arguing the plaintiff's contributory negligence, the appellants have laid great stress upon various conflictin......
-
Dodd v. Coakley
...he started across when Dodd's car was so near that a reasonable person would have known that it was not safe to cross. Temple v. Ellington, 177 Va. 134, 12 S.E. (2d) 826, involved a situation similar to the one here. There, in the morning of a clear day, Temple drove his truck north from a ......