Vandenberg v. Snider

• Decision Date: 03 June 1935
• Docket Number: No. 18350.,18350.
• Parties: VANDENBERG v. SNIDER.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

83 S.W.2d 201

VANDENBERG v. SNIDER.

No. 18350.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 3, 1935.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Hon. Brown Harris, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Action by Betty J. Vandenberg, a minor, by her mother and next friend, Madeline Vandenberg, against Sam H. Snider. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Hook & Sprinkle, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Cope & Hadsell and Roy W. Rucker, all of Kansas City, for respondent.

CAMPBELL, Commissioner.

Plaintiff, seven years old, brought this suit to recover damages for personal injuries caused by a collision between a Ford automobile in which she was riding and which was being operated by Sarah Weston, and a Buick automobile driven by the defendant. Plaintiff had a judgment, from which the defendant has appealed.

The petition alleged primary negligence and a violation of the humanitarian rule. The case was submitted to the jury solely on the humanitarian doctrine. The defendant contends the evidence was not sufficient to make a submissible case based on the humanitarian rule.

The place of collision was the southeast corner of the intersection of Broadway, a north and south street, 72 feet wide, and Armour boulevard an east and west street, 56 feet wide. The Ford automobile traveled north on the east side of Broadway; the Buick automobile came from the north to a point about west of the south line of Armour boulevard, thence it was turned to the east, the driver intending to go upon Armour Boulevard.

Sarah Weston testified that she approached the intersection going about 20 miles an hour; that she saw the Buick on the opposite side of the street and saw it when it was turned to the east; that she thereafter looked straight ahead and did not see the Buick again until its hood was directly in front of her; that she swerved the Ford to the left but was unable to avoid a collision; and that the Buick was going 30 to 35 miles an hour. Witnesses who saw the collision estimated the speed of the Ford at 30 to 40 miles an hour and the speed of the Buick at 8 to 10 miles an hour. There was evidence to the effect that the Ford, an instant prior to the impact, was swerved to the right; that it was swerved to its left; and that it was not swerved in either direction. There was evidence showing that an instant before the collision the speed of the Buick was accelerated; and that its speed was not increased. The defendant testified that he came to a stop at or near the north line of the intersection; that at that time the Ford was about 150 feet to the south; that he then drove south to a point about directly west of the south line of Armour boulevard when he turned to the east going 4 or 5 miles an hour; that he did not see the Ford after he entered the intersection until it was within 15 or 20 feet of him; that at the speed he was traveling he could have stopped his automobile with safety within 2 or 3 feet.

The jury was not bound to believe the evidence of the defendant to the effect that after he entered the intersection he did not see the Ford automobile until it was within 15 or 20 feet of him. The automobile in which plaintiff was riding was in plain view of the defendant, and the jury could very well find that he saw the Ford automobile during all of the time he was within the intersection; that defendant knew, or in the exercise of due care would have known, that if he continued to travel to the east he would place his automobile in the path of the oncoming Ford and that a collision would result; that defendant had the means at hand to stop in safety and thus avoid a...