White v. Demetelin, 5480
| Decision Date | 02 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5480,5480 |
| Citation | 442 P.2d 914,84 Nev. 430 |
| Parties | J. Howard WHITE, as Guardian Ad Litem for Allen D. White, Appellant, v. Mary G. DEMETELIN, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This action was brought by J. Howard White as guardian ad litem for his son, Allen White, against Mary Demetelin for personal injuries suffered by the son in an automobile accident on December 23, 1961 in Las Vegas, Nevada. A defense verdict was returned by the jury and this appeal followed.
The facts, taken most favorably to the prevailing party below, Southern Pacific v. Watkins, 83 Nev. 471, 435 P.2d 498 (1967), show that the defendant Mary Demetelin was proceeding east on Foremaster Lane at approximately the noon hour on the day in question. Plaintiff-guardian, the driver, and his son, a passenger, were proceeding in the family car north on Las Vegas Boulevard. Defendant, after stopping at the stop sign at the Foremaster Lane-Las Vegas Boulevard intersection, noted at least one car stopped in the left lane of the northbound portion of Las Vegas Boulevard, about to make a left hand turn onto Foremaster Lane. Defendant testified that she saw no other cars approaching, but with the left-turning vehicle yielding the right of way to her, she proceeded slowly across the intersection. The automobiles of the parties then collided at a point in the southeast quadrant of the intersection. Both testified that they did not see the other's car until an instant before the crash and that neither of them had an opportunity to apply brakes or blow the horn. Appellant's minor son suffered facial injuries as a result of the accident and appellant brought this suit to recover.
Appellant's main contention on appeal is that the verdict, in light of the evidence and the applicable motor vehicle statute, was incorrect as a matter of law. The contention rests upon the claim that the jury disregarded the court's instruction on the law of intersection right of way. NRS 484.163. 1 He contends that if the jury had correctly applied the law stated therein as well as the law given them on the effect of a statutory violation in finding negligence, 2 they necessarily would have found for him. We do not agree.
Although the effect of a person's statutory violation makes him negligent as a matter of law, there are other issues of fact to be determined by the jury.
It is a jury question whether the statute was, in fact, violated by the defendant. Since the defendant under NRS 484.163 was only required to yield the right of way to a vehicle 'approaching so closely * * * as to constitute an immediate hazard' it is for the jury to decide if the plaintiff was within the protected area. The mere fact that an accident happened is not conclusive on that point. The defendant was not forced to cross the intersection absolutely at her peril. Grasso v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc.
...and whether the violation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries are questions of fact for the jury, see White v. Demetelin, 84 Nev. 430, 442 P.2d 914 (1968), we must conclude that it was error for the trial judge to refuse to give appellants' proposed instruction. Additionally, ......