Williams v. Hendrickson
| Decision Date | 05 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 42712,42712 |
| Citation | 189 Kan. 673,371 P.2d 188 |
| Parties | Robert B. WILLIAMS, Appellee, v. Eldon HENDRICKSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The record in an action to recover damages to person and property sustained by plaintiff in a collision of motor vehicles on the public highway examined, and it is held: The trial court did not err (1) in overruling the defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's petition; (2) in overruling defendant's motion for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence and holding there was sufficient evidence to sustain the general verdict and the answers to the special questions returned by the jury; (3) in overruling defendant's challenge for cause of three jurors; (4) in the admission and rejection of evidence; (5) in refusing certain requested special questions and submitting special questions to the jury; and (6) in denying in part defendant's requested instructions and giving its instructions to the jury.
2. The voir dire examination of a juror is a trial to the court of his qualifications to sit as a juror in the case. The judgment of the trial court on the matter, when supported by substantial competent evidence, and not contrary to our statutes, will not be disturbed by this court.
3. The provisions of G.S.1961 Supp. 8-1001, impose no limitations in the use of a blood alcohol test, and, if properly obtained and accurately identified, may be admitted in evidence in a civil action where pertinent to the issues involved in the case.
4. A deposition taken at a time when the witness is not a party to the action cannot be used against him in a subsequent action wherein he is a party.
5. It is competent for the court to supervise and shape special interrogatories that are submitted to a jury and it may reject questions that are improper or immaterial and limit the questions to ultimate facts on controverted issues.
William H. Stowell, Phillipsburg, argued the cause, and Doris Dixon Stowell, Phillipsburg, was with him on the briefs for appellant.
Wm. P. Thompson, Wichita, argued the cause, and A. W. Hershberger, Richard Jones, H. E. Jones, Jerome E. Jones, Robert J. Roth and William R. Smith, Wichita, and Arno Windscheffel, Smith Center, were with him on the briefs for appellee.
This was an action filed by plaintiff (appellee) Robert B. Williams against Eldon Hendrickson, defendant (appellant), to recover for personal injuries and property damage sustained by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant.
Plaintiff alleged that while he was driving his automobile in a westerly direction on U.S. Highway 36 defendant, operating his automobile in the same direction, negligently struck plaintiff's car in the rear, which resulted in injury to plaintiff and property damage to his vehicle.
Defendant answered that he saw the plaintiff drive his car onto highway 36 ahead of him; that plaintiff did not speed up sufficiently to match defendant's speed and defendant was barred from passing by a truck approaching in the passing lane and by a no-passing zone on the highway; that defendant applied his brakes to avoid striking the rear of plaintiff's automobile, but without effect; that defendant acted in an emergency not caused by his negligence; and that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
Plaintiff replied by way of a general denial.
On the issues thus joined the case proceeded to trial to a jury, which returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff and at the same time returned its answers to special questions submitted to it finding defendant guilty of negligence in operating his automobile; that plaintiff was free from contributory negligence; that there was no sudden failure of the brakes of the vehicle driven by defendant; that the accident aggravated existing injuries to plaintiff; and that plaintiff was entitled to damages in an amount specified for personal injuries and property damage.
From an order of the trial court overruling defendant's post-trial motions and entering judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendant appeals.
A brief resume of the facts follows. At approximately 8:00 p.m. on March 16 plaintiff drove his automobile south to U.S. Highway 36. After stopping at the stop sign, and seeing no oncoming traffic, he turned right onto the highway, and after proceeding in a westerly direction at a speed of twenty-five to thirty miles an hour for a distance of about two blocks his vehicle was struck in the rear by an automobile proceeding in the same direction being driven by defendant. The force of the collision caused the front seat of plaintiff's car to fall over backwards and forced the automobile into a culvert on the right side of the road. By reason of the collision plaintiff suffered personal injury and damage to his car.
The undisputed evidence disclosed that the defendant had previously consumed four bottles of beer. Defendant testified he was driving his automobile at a speed of sixty miles an hour and his headlights were in operation; that he observed plaintiff's car at the stop sign at the entrance to U.S. Highway 36 and observed plaintiff drive onto the highway; that he expected plaintiff's automobile to accelerate to match his own speed and when this did not occur he was too close to plaintiff's car to avoid a collision. Defendant further testified that when he did attempt to apply his brakes they were ineffective and that he was unable to pass plaintiff on the left by reason of an oncoming car. Plaintiff testified that he did not recall seeing any vehicle coming toward him after he turned west.
After the collision the parties were taken to the hospital where defendant gave his written consent to the sheriff to have his blood tested for alcoholic content. The sheriff called Dr. Bauer who withdrew the blood that was later tested by a chemist and found to have an alcoholic content of 0.168% by weight. The doctor testified that a blood alcohol above 0.16% indicates that it is well within the inebriated level. The doctor further testified that he observed the odor of alcohol on defendant's breath, noted that he was unsteady, his speech was slurred, and it was the doctor's opinion that defendant was under the influence of alcohol. He stated defendant was not his patient.
Two mechanics testified that they tested the brakes of defendant's car the following day and that there was a half pedal of solid brake, which, in their opinion, showed that the brakes were good.
In view of the questions raised no useful purpose could be gained in further relating the evidence. Suffice it to say that plaintiff's petition stated a cause of action and that the court did not err in overruling the demurrer lodged thereto, that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the trial court's order overruling defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence, and from our review of the entire record the evidence was sufficient to sustain the general verdict and the answers to the special questions submitted to the jury.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in restricting his voir dire examination of three prospective jurors and in overruling defendant's challenge for cause of each juror. The voir dire examination of a juror is in the nature of a trial to the court of his qualifications to sit as juror in the case, and the judgment of the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Divine v. Groshong
...grounds here urged, we held that the results of the tests were properly admitted into evidence. Both parties cite Williams v. Hendrickson, 189 Kan. 673, 371 P.2d 188 (1962), a personal injury accident arising out of a motor vehicle collision. In that case, defendant gave his written consent......
-
Kettler v. Phillips
...340 P.2d 924; Millers' Nat. Ins. Co., Chicago, Ill. v. Wichita Flour Mills Co., 10 Cir., 257 F.2d 93, 76 A.L.R.2d 385; Williams v. Hendrickson, 189 Kan. 673, 371 P.2d 188; Goldman v. Bennett, 189 Kan. 681, 371 P.2d The appellant contends that the jury's answer to special questions acquitted......
-
State v. Jefferson, 45320
...obtained and accurately identified, are admissible in a case although the blood sample itself is not in evidence. (Williams v. Hendrickson, 189 Kan. 673, 676, 371 P.2d 188.) Color slides or reproductions showing the victim's body used by the coroner to demonstrate to the jury the depth of t......
-
State v. Potts, 45573
...must be affirmative, contradictory and adverse to the party calling him. (Hancock v. Bevins, 135 Kan. 195, 9 P.2d 634; Williams v. Hendrickson, 187 Kan. 673, 371 P.2d 188.) The appellant contends that the witness gave no adverse testimony but only stated he did not know or could not remembe......