Wilson v. Roach

• Decision Date: 29 January 1924
• Docket Number: Case Number: 12546
• Citation: 222 P. 1000,1924 OK 126,101 Okla. 30
• Parties: WILSON v. ROACH.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1924 OK 126

222 P. 1000

101 Okla. 30

WILSON v. ROACH.

Case Number: 12546

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: January 29, 1924

Syllabus

¶0 1. Negligence--"Unavoidable Accident."

An unavoidable accident is a casualty which occurs without negligence of either party, and when all means which common prudence suggests have been used to prevent it.

2. Same--Responsibility for Damages.

Neither party to an unavoidable accident is responsible to the other for damages sustained thereby.

3. Same--Automobile Collision.

Automobilists are not insurers. Mere proof of injuries sustained in a collision with an automobile raises no presumption of negligence.

4. Same--Reasonable Care in Emergency.

In event the driver of an automobile is suddenly met with an emergency which naturally would overpower the judgment of a reasonably prudent and careful driver, so that momentarily he is thereby rendered incapable of deliberate and intelligent action, and as a result injures a third person, the driver is not negligent, provided he has used due care to avoid meeting such an emergency, and after it arises, he uses such care as a reasonably prudent and capable driver of an automobile would use under the unusual circumstances.

5. Same--Action for Personal Injuries--Defense--Instructions.

In a suit by a plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision with defendant's automobile, negligence of the defendant is the basis of the cause of action, and where the defendant in such case pleads and submits evidence to make prima facie proof that the casualty was an unavoidable accident, it is error for the court to refuse to properly instruct the jury upon that issue.

Error from District Court, Garfield County; James B. Cullison, Judge.

Action by Luella Roach against W. D. Wilson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Dyer & Keim, for plaintiff in error.

C. D. Roseman and H. J. Sturgis, for defendant in error.

LYDICK, J.

¶1 In this case, Luella Roach, as plaintiff, filed her petition in the district court of Garfield county, against W. D. Wilson, as defendant, for the recovery of damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between an automobile driven by defendant's agent, with a horse and buggy driven by plaintiff, and in which buggy plaintiff was then seated. The collision occurred on Independence avenue, a public highway, in the city of Enid, Okla. Plaintiff alleges that defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries. The defendant, by answer, admitted the collision, asserted it to have been an unavoidable accident occurring through no negligence on his part, and made other defenses.

¶2 The case was tried to the court and jury, and upon the verdict of the jury, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant, Wilson, brings the case held on appeal. The parties are referred to according to the position they occupied in the lower court.

¶3 The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that she was driving her horse and buggy southward and upon her righthand side of the street, using due care and without fault; that defendant's agent was driving the automobile northward on the driver's left-hand side of the street, at an excessive rate of speed; that he suddenly, illegally, and without right or warning, turned the automobile to the driver's left diagonally northwest, and carelessly and recklessly collided with the plaintiff's buggy, causing her to be thrown therefrom and injured.

¶4 The defendant affirmatively pleaded and introduced evidence tending to show that the street was only 60 feet wide from curb to curb; that defendant's agent was slowly and cautiously driving the automobile northward on the driver's right half of the street; that along both sides of this street automobiles were rightfully and lawfully parked; that the passage way between the two rows of automobiles was such as to leave but little space between automobiles or vehicles meeting and passing there. That at the time of the accident the plaintiff was seated in a buggy which was stopped and illegally standing still in the middle of the street, blocking the traffic, and making it impossible for vehicles to pass upon the street at the place where such collision occurred; that as defendant's agent was driving his automobile along the street, someone, without signal or warning, very suddenly backed a parked automobile from the driver's righthand side of the street in front of and towards, and almost into his automobile; that in order to avoid a collision with said car, and imminent bodily injury to himself, the defendant's agent, necessarily and quickly, turned his automobile to the left while yet going forward, it reasonably appearing to defendant's agent that such a course was necessary and proper; that the defendant's agent and driver had reason to believe that he could by so turning his car avoid collision of any kind, and that if the buggy had not been wrongfully placed by plaintiff in the center of the street, no collision would have occurred; that the defendant's agent, by so doing, did cause the left hand fender of his automobile to collide but slightly with the left front wheel of plaintiff's buggy; that the plaintiff unnecessarily jumped from the buggy, and thus carelessly and negligently caused her own injuries.

¶5 Defendant, having so pleaded, introduced evidence which, should the jury believe the same, is sufficient to support a finding by the jury that the collision was unavoidable and without negligence on the part of the defendant or his agent.

¶6 At the conclusion of the trial, defendant requested the following instruction:

"You are instructed that if you find from all of the facts and circumstances introduced in the evidence during the trial of this case that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were the result of an unavoidable accident or inevitable accident and that such accident happened by and without fault, then your verdict should be for the defendant."

¶7 The instruction was refused, and exceptions duly saved by defendant.

¶8 The court, over the objection of the defendant, gave the following instruction to the jury:

"You are hereby instructed that an automobile has the same right to the use of a road and highway as a buggy and horse, but has no greater right. Notwithstanding the right of an automobile to the use of a

...