Valdez v. Glenn, 2820

• Decision Date: 07 October 1958
• Docket Number: No. 2820,2820
• Citation: 330 P.2d 309,79 Wyo. 53
• Parties: Eugene VALDEZ, sometimes known as L. E. Shoopman, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Roy J. GLENN and Henry Dunbar, Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 309

330 P.2d 309

79 Wyo. 53

Eugene VALDEZ, sometimes known as L. E. Shoopman, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Roy J. GLENN and Henry Dunbar, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 2820.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Oct. 7, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1958.

See 332 P.2d 1119.

John J. Spriggs, Sr., and John J. Spriggs, Jr., Lander, for appellant.

Elmer J. Scott, Worland, for respondents.

Before BLUME, C. J., and HARNSBERGER and PARKER, JJ.

Justice HARNSBERGER delivered the opinion of this court.

Plaintiff sued defendants to recover damages for injuries sustained in the collision of plaintiff's automobile with a tractor-trailer unit driven by defendant Dunbar and owned by defendant Glenn. The case was tried to a jury which rendered verdict in favor of defendants and thereupon the court entered judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff appeals on the ground both verdict and judgment were contrary to law, contrary to evidence and because the evidence was insufficient to support either. Plaintiff also says the verdict and judgment were the result of passion and prejudice brought about by improper conduct of defendants and their attorney; that the court admitted illegal evidence and erred in giving certain instructions and in refusing certain other instructions.

We have, therefore, scrutinized the evidence most favorable to defendants. From this it appears the accident occurred on a federal-aid highway at a place where there was a swale between the crests of two hills which were approximately thirty-eight hundred feet apart. The depth of the dip between the hills was about sixty to sixty-five feet below the crest of the highest hill to the east end and slightly less than that below the crest of the hill at the west end. The slope, or incline of the road, to the bottom of the swale, where the road crossed a small bridge at a point substantially midway between the crests of the two hills was gradual in both directions and admitted of unobstructed vision over the whole distance, although there were some slight raises and depressions. The width of the road's oil mat was about twenty-seven feet and the borrow pit to the north was about two feet below its surface, while that to the south was about one foot below the traveled surface and there were gradually sloping shoulders on the both sides.

The accident occurred at a point something less than twelve hundred feet to the east of the bridge where plaintiff's automobile struck the rearward right side of the twenty-nine foot flat-bed trailer of defendants' unit as it was being pulled from the north across the highway by its tractor in making a left hand turn to bring it into position to travel toward the east. The plaintiff's car was coming from the west. As a result of the crash plaintiff was severely injured.

Prior to the collision defendants' truck-trailer had been going toward the west but had pulled into the north borrow pit preparatory to changing its direction in order to travel toward the east. The tractor-trailer had turned enough in the north borrow pit so that it approached the traveled highway from a northerly direction heading toward the south and it had completely stopped on the shoulder of the road before coming upon the oiled surface. At this place the driver opened the left door of his cab and looked both to the right and to the left. To his right he saw plaintiff's car which was then at a point approximately midway between the creat of the hill to the west and the bridge. This would mean that plaintiff's car was about twenty-one hundred feet away. The truck then started across the highway, making a left hand turn and had cleared the oiled surface with all of the unit except some eight to ten feet, or possibly a little more, of the trailer remaining on the oiled surface in the truck's own right hand lane as it would travel in an easterly direction, when it was struck from the rear by plaintiff's car at a point on the right side of the trailer somewhat back of its center.

There was evidence that plaintiff had been drinking beer. The plaintiff said he drank only 'two beers' but other evidence tended to contradict this and several empty cans of beer were found in his car with at least one such can still containing beer.

The plaintiff claims the defendants operated the truck in a negligent manner. Defendants deny their negligence and insist that in any event the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence because the collision could have been avoided by plaintiff if he had been properly operating his car.

The jury found for defendants but as it made no findings of fact we do not know whether it concluded the defendants were not negligent in the operation of the tractor-trailer unit, or that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence or both. In any case we are satisfied that there was substantial and sufficient evidence to support either or both of those findings.

Plaintiff insists that in cross-examination the defense tactics of asking insinuating questions without thereafter producing competent evidence to sustain the implication of the questions resulted in getting before the jury evidence which was improper and prejudicial. This assumption is not...