Thompson v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 11 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 39046,39046 |
| Citation | 69 So.2d 238,219 Miss. 552 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. THOMAS. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Kermit R. Cofer, John P. Horan, Water Valley, for appellant.
Murray L. Williams, Water Valley, for appellee.
This was a suit in the circuit court by Dudley Thomas against James F. Thompson to recover damages for personal injuries proximately resulting from the wreck of an automobile. He obtained a verdict for $3,000; and from the judgment entered thereon, Thompson appealed.
Thomas worked on a commission basis for Thompson, who operated a photograph studio business in the Town of Water Valley. R. D. McGregor and Price Rushing, with Thomas as leader, composed a crew which solicited orders for pictures. Thompson furnished the automobile, a 1949 model Ford, which was used for transportation. On October 10, 1952, the men were returning from Lambert to Water Valley. Thomas was on the back seat, sick, and for that reason, McGregor was driving. As the automobile, at a speed of about 25 miles an hour, approached a bridge, it was meeting a truck from the opposite direction. When the truck did not dim its lights, but came onto the bridge, which was about 18 feet wide, McGregor pulled to the right, applied the brakes, and ran off the road and into the creek below. When he applied the brakes the car 'jerked me off the bridge.' Later, on cross-examination, when he was testifying about the failure of the truck to dim its lights, and when he was asked if that was the cause of the wreck, he answered that it was.
The plaintiff's case, insofar as the manner in which the wreck occurred, rested solely on the evidence of McGregor, as Thomas was asleep at the time, and Price Rushing did not testify. The injuries consisted of three broken ribs, a fractured jaw, several lacerations, and numerous bruises. The hospital and medical expenses amounted to about $200.
Two witnesses for the defendant, in a car behind the truck, saw the lights of the automobile disappear, made an investigation, and found the wrecked car and the men in the creek; but they, of course, could not say definitely whether the automobile merely ran off the road, or whether its defective condition caused it to do so, when the brakes were applied.
The proof by the plaintiff himself and several other witnesses showed that the automobile had been driven over 100,000 miles and was in a bad state of repair; that the front part was out of line, and it pulled to the right; that Thomas complained to the defendant after both his first and second weeks' work about the unsafe condition of the automobile; that defendant then took it to be repaired, in the meantime providing Thomas with another; and the next week assured him that it had been fixed. While some repairs had been made, no work was done on the front end, the part complained about. This was confirmed by the mechanic. On the contrary, the automobile continued to pull to the right. The testimony of the defendant himself was in substantial conflict with the evidence for the plaintiff as to the condition of the automobile.
Consequently, an issue was made for the jury's determination, namely, whether or not at the time of the wreck, the automobile was in a dangerous condition, and whether or not the defendant knew, or ought to have known, that it was in such condition.
The testimony of McGregor made an issue for the jury as to whether or not the unsafe condition of the automobile proximately caused or contributed to the wreck. Since Thompson furnished the automobile in question, he was under the duty to use reasonable care to provide a reasonably safe one. Curry and Turner Construction Co., Inc. v. Bryan, 184 Miss. 44, 185 So. 256, and authorities there cited. Texas Company v. Jackson, 174 Miss. 737, 165 So. 546, is quite analogous. See also Texas Company v. Mills, 171 Miss. 231, 156 So. 866.
But appellant contends that the wreck was due (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. Woollard, 43054
...complained of. Insufficient laborers to lift the wheel was the sole proximate cause of the injuries. The cases of Thompson v. Thomas, 219 Miss. 552, 69 So.2d 238, and Edmon v. Kochtitzky, 211 Miss. 301, 51 So.2d 482, are also cited by the appellant in support of his contention that there wa......
-
Seymour v. Gulf Coast Buick, Inc., 42650
...true. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Freeman, 193 Miss. 838, 11 So.2d 447; Byrd v. Masonite Corp., 218 Miss. 731, 67 So.2d 724; Thompson v. Thomas, 219 Miss. 552, 69 So.2d 238; Posey v. Weatherspoon, 227 Miss. 189, 85 So.2d 908; Meridian Hatcheries, Inc. v. Troutman, 230 Miss. 493, 93 So.2d 472; Jo......
-
Tribble v. Gregory
...Texas Co. v. Mills, 171 Miss. 231, 156 So. 866 (1934). See also, 53 Am.Jur.2d, Master and Servant, § 320. In Thompson v. Thomas, 219 Miss. 552, 69 So.2d 238 (1954) we Where the duty to use reasonable care to furnish a reasonably safe instrumentality applies, the follow servant rule has no a......
-
Melton v. Melton Planting Co.
...mingles with that [of] one who stood in the relation of a fellow servant to the servant receiving the injury." Thompson v. Thomas, 219 Miss. 552, 557, 69 So.2d 238, 240 (1954). Here the district court examined each of plaintiff's theories of liability against the employer Melton Planting an......