Watkins v. Byrnes
| Decision Date | 06 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | 24,990 |
| Parties | CORA WATKINS, Appellee, v. WILLIAM BYRNES, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1924
Appeal from Rooks district court; CHARLES I. SPARKS, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. NEGLIGENCE--Collision Between Automobile and Mule Team--Evidence--Findings. The evidence relating to a collision between an automobile and a mule-drawn wagon, where both were moving in the same direction on a public highway and where the wagon was proceeding in front and on the left side of the road, which was the beaten part, and where there was not sufficient room to pass on the left side of the road, the driver of the automobile sounded his horn, indicating a desire to pass, but the signal was not heard by the occupants of the wagon, and it was not turned to the right, and the automobile was driven to the left against the wagon, tipping it over and causing the injury for which the action was brought, is held to be sufficient to sustain a finding that the collision was due to the negligence of the driver of the automobile.
2. SAME--Duties of Drivers of Two Vehicles Traveling in Same Direction. Where two vehicles are traveling in the same direction and the rear driver gives a signal that he desires to pass and there is not room for passage on the left, it is the duty of the driver of the front vehicle, if practicable and safe, to turn aside so as to leave room on the left for passage, but he is not necessarily negligent if he does not so turn where he does not hear the signal nor know of the purpose to pass or where it is not practicable and safe to turn aside when the signal is given.
3. SAME--Instructions Not Erroneous. Objections to instructions examined and held to be without prejudicial error.
W. K. Skinner, of Stockton, C. O. Schultz, of Hays, Charles L. Hunt, and C. J. Putt, both of Concordia, for the appellant.
W. L. Sayers, J. S. Parker, both of Hill City, and O. O. Osborne, of Stockton, for the appellee.
This was an action to recover for injuries sustained in a collision of William Byrnes' automobile with the mule-drawn wagon of Cora Watkins, in which she and three of her children were riding at the time. Plaintiff and her family were traveling on a highway in an easterly direction, her son driving the mules. They were proceeding on the left or north side of the road, which appears to have been the beaten portion of it. The defendant's automobile was following the wagon, and as it approached plaintiff's vehicle from behind the horn of the automobile was sounded, indicating a desire to pass and a warning for plaintiff to turn to the right so as to give room on the left for the automobile to pass. It appears the signal given was not heard by the plaintiff or driver of the wagon, but the automobile proceeded and as it tried to pass on the left the right fender of the car struck the left wheel of the wagon, throwing the plaintiff out and causing the injuries of which complaint was made. The plaintiff alleged that the collision and resulting injury was due to the negligence of the defendant. In his answer defendant conceded that the automobile struck the plaintiff's vehicle by reason of which she was thrown to the ground, but he averred that the collision would not have occurred but for plaintiff's negligence. He alleged that upon approaching the wagon, which was traveling on the left side of the road, he repeatedly sounded his horn, indicating an intention to pass, but that plaintiff paid no attention to the signals and continued driving on the left side. That defendant then turned his automobile to the right with a view of passing on that side, but that about that time plaintiff without warning then turned her wagon to the right in front of defendant's advancing automobile, whereupon defendant then tried to turn to the left and avoid hitting the wagon, but that there was not sufficient time and the distance between the vehicles was then too short to enable defendant to pass without striking plaintiff's wagon. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of plaintiff, and with it special findings to the effect that the driver of defendant's car sounded his horn as he approached the wagon and did so within a reasonable distance, but it also found that plaintiff did not hear the signal. It was also found that the driver of the car did not use reasonable care to avoid running into the wagon, and further that there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff which contributed to the collision. There was a finding too that the defendant's car could have passed on the right side of plaintiff's wagon without colliding therewith, that the driver of defendant's car attempted to pass plaintiff's wagon on the north side at a time and place when it was not reasonably safe to pass on that side, and that the negligence of defendant consisted of approaching the wagon too close before turning out to pass and should have passed on the right-hand side.
In his appeal defendant contends that the testimony was insufficient to uphold pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manzanares v. Bell
...... (See e. g. McDonald v. Yoder, 80 Kan. 25, 101 P. 468; Watkins v. Byrnes, 117 Kan. 172, 230 P. 1048; Strohmyer v. Ventura, 178 Kan. 597, 290 P.2d 1001; Morris v. Hoesch, 204 Kan. [214 Kan. 598] 735, 466 P.2d 272; ......
-
Dodson v. Maddox
......Montgomery, 212 S.W.2d 748. (2) Under the law of Kansas the driver of a motor vehicle is. held only to the exercise of ordinary care. Watkins v. Byrnes, 117 Kan. 172, 230 P. 1048; Hall Motor Freight v. Montgomery, supra. (3) If the courts of Kansas have not ruled. any particular ......
-
Dodson v. Maddox
...S.W. (2d) 748. (2) Under the law of Kansas the driver of a motor vehicle is held only to the exercise of ordinary care. Watkins v. Byrnes, 117 Kan. 172, 230 Pac. 1048; Hall Motor Freight v. Montgomery, supra. (3) If the courts of Kansas have not ruled any particular substantive point involv......
-
Swinkels v. Wis. Mich. Power Co.
...of a rear vehicle, indicating a desire to pass, should turn to the right, if conditions are favorable to such turning. Watkins v. Byrnes, 117 Kan. 172, 230 P. 1048. The duty of the driver of a forward car to turn to the right exists only after request or equivalent notice that an approachin......