From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greyhound Corporation et al. v. Kindle

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Apr 10, 1961
240 Miss. 702 (Miss. 1961)

Opinion

No. 41758.

April 10, 1961.

1. Motor vehicles — intersectional collision — negligence — proximate cause — jury questions.

Evidence was sufficient to make a case for the jury as to whether negligence of truck driver or negligence of bus driver was responsible for collision which occurred when driver of heavily loaded truck suddenly pulled to the left in order to avoid a bus which had entered intersection without stopping. Sec. 1455, Code 1942.

2. Motor vehicles — negligence — damages — award to bus passenger not excessive.

Award of $40,000 to 49-year-old woman who suffered injuries from left side of her head to her left ankle and received a comminuted fracture of left collar bone resulting in 20 per cent loss of use of left shoulder and who suffered aggravation of a prior circulatory trouble and who suffered from nervous condition and shock to such extent that operation was delayed five days, was not excessive.

Headnotes as approved by Arrington, J.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Forrest County; STANTON A. HALL, Judge.

M.M. Roberts, Hattiesburg, for appellants, The Greyhound Corporation and Cecil O. Strahan.

I. The defendants, The Greyhound Corporation and Cecil O. Strahan, are entitled to judgment of dismissal for them.

A. Scintilla of evidence rule does not apply in Mississippi. Goudy v. State, 203 Miss. 366, 35 So.2d 308; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Underwood, 235 F.2d 868; Matthews v. Thompson, 231 Miss. 258, 95 So.2d 438; Mutual Benefit Health Acc. Assn. v. Johnson (Miss.), 186 So. 297; New Orleans N.E.R. Co. v. Burge, 191 Miss. 303, 2 So.2d 825; Permenter v. Milner Chevrolet Co., 229 Miss. 385, 91 So.2d 243; Robinson v. Sims, 227 Miss. 375, 86 So.2d 318; Stapleton v. Louisville N.R. Co., 265 F.2d 738; Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. Lamensdorf, 180 Miss. 426, 177 So. 50.

II. If the bus company and its driver are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then the cause should be reversed because of errors relating to selection of the jury, admission of evidence and instructions to the jury. Rawlings v. Royals, 214 Miss. 335, 58 So.2d 820; Russell v. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 239 Miss. 741, 125 So.2d 283; Tynes v. McLendon, 235 Miss. 336, 108 So.2d 716; Sec. 1525, Code 1942.

III. The amount of the verdict and judgment thereon is so excessive as to require a reduction thereof at the hands of this Court. Continental Southern Lines v. Williams, 226 Miss. 624, 85 So.2d 179; Gulf Coast Motor Express Co. v. Diggs, 174 Miss. 650, 165 So. 292; Gulfport Fertilizer Co. v. Bilbo, 178 Miss. 791, 174 So.2d 65; Kincade Lofton v. Stephens (Miss.), 50 So.2d 587; Mitchell-Davis Distributing Co. v. McDonald, 223 Miss. 573, 78 So.2d 597; Peerless Supply Co. v. Jeter, 218 Miss. 61, 65 So.2d 240; Shearron v. Shearron, 219 Miss. 27, 69 So.2d 801.

Dudley W. Conner, Hattiesburg, for appellants, W.J. Folkes and Robert J. Naylor.

I. Actionable wrong or negligence. Campbell v. Willard, 205 Miss. 783, 38 So.2d 483; Chadwick v. Bush, 174 Miss. 75, 163 So. 823; Gulf M. N.R. Co. v. Sparkman, 180 Miss. 456, 177 So. 760; McMinn v. Lilly, 215 Miss. 193, 60 So.2d 603; City of Meridian v. McCoy (Miss.), 43 So.2d 883; Moore v. Taggart, 233 Miss. 389, 102 So.2d 333; Morris v. Boleware, 228 Miss. 139, 87 So.2d 246; Phillips v. Delta Motor Lines, 235 Miss. 1, 108 So.2d 409; Vaughan v. Lewis (Miss.), 112 So.2d 247.

II. The amount of the verdict is excessive. Francis v. Terminal Railway Assn. (Mo.), 193 S.W.2d 909; Fuller v. Hudson Transport Co., 90 N.Y. Supp.2d 129; Higgenbotham v. Frazier (La.), 92 So.2d 89; Kincade Lofton v. Stephens (Miss.), 50 So.2d 587; Windolph v. Harley (La.), 79 So.2d 911; Yellow Bus Line v. Brenner (Tenn.), 213 S.W.2d 626.

III. Erroneous instructions granted the plaintiff. Baldwin v. McKay, 41 Miss. 358; Graham v. Brummett, 182 Miss. 580, 181 So. 721; Hines v. McCullers, 121 Miss. 666, 83 So. 734; McDonough Motor Express, Inc. v. Spiers, 180 Miss. 78, 176 So. 723, 177 So. 655; Meridian City Lines v. Baker, 206 Miss. 58, 39 So.2d 541, 8 A.L.R. 2d 854; New Orleans N.E.R. Co. v. Miles, 197 Miss. 846, 20 So.2d 657; Rawlings v. Royals, 214 Miss. 335, 58 So.2d 820; Ross v. Louisville N.R. Co., 181 Miss. 795, 181 So. 133; Southern Railway Co. v. Ganong, 99 Miss. 540, 55 So. 355; Tynes v. McClendon, 235 Miss. 336, 108 So.2d 716; Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. Aultman, 179 Miss. 109, 173 So. 280; Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. Cornelius, 131 Miss. 37, 95 So. 90.

Frank D. Barber, Edward J. Currie, Sr., Edward J. Currie, Jr., Hattiesburg, for appellee.

I. The driver of the stump-truck did not use all reasonable precautions to avoid the collision.

II. The negligent acts of the bus driver helped to create an emergency, but the negligent acts of the stump-truck driver also helped to create such emergency.

III. It was not impossible for the collision to have been avoided, but such collision was proximately caused by the combined, concurrent and contributing negligence of the driver of the bus and of the driver of the stump-truck.

IV. The collision was not an unavoidable accident, but it was proximately caused by the combined, concurrent and contributing acts of negligence of the driver of the bus and of the driver of the stump-truck.

V. The driver of the stump-truck was not operating such vehicle with due care under the facts and circumstances then and there existing.

VI. The driver of the stump-truck did not do everything he could do to avoid injuring the appellee.

Collation of authorities: Moore v. Taggart, 233 Miss. 389, 102 So.2d 333; Phillips v. Delta Motor Lines, Inc., 235 Miss. 1, 108 So.2d 409; Ulmer v. Pistole, 115 Miss. 485, 76 So. 522; Sec. 8249, Code 1942; 5A Am. Jur., Sec. 248 p. 380; 60 C.J.S., Sec. 261 p. 639.

VII. The verdict is not excessive. Aponaug Mfg. Co. v. Carroll, 183 Miss. 793, 184 So. 63; Bell v. Morrison, 27 Miss. 68; Biedenharn Candy Co. v. Moore, 184 Miss. 721, 186 So. 628; Canale v. Jones, 228 Miss. 317, 87 So.2d 694; City of Jackson v. Reed, 233 Miss. 280, 102 So.2d 342; J.C. Penney Co. v. Evans, 172 Miss. 900, 160 So. 779; McDonald v. Moore, 159 Miss. 326, 131 So. 824; Memphis C.R. Co. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466; Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Caruth, 51 Miss. 77; Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Hardy, 88 Miss. 732, 41 So. 505; Mississippi Ice Utilities Co. v. Pearce, 161 Miss. 252, 134 So. 164; Miss. P. L. Co. v. Thomas, 206 Miss. 201, 39 So.2d 759; New Orleans, J. G.N.R. Co. v. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660; St. Louis S.F.R. Co. v. Hays, 136 Miss. 701, 101 So. 548; St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Dyson, 207 Miss. 639, 43 So.2d 95; Sandifer Oil Co., Inc. v. Dew, 220 Miss. 609, 71 So.2d 752; Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Burke, 208 Miss. 306, 44 So.2d 448; Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co. v. Quick, 167 Miss. 438, 149 So. 107; Steppacher v. Reneau, 25 Miss. 114; Western A.R. Co. v. Burnett, 79 Ga. App. 530, 54 S.E.2d 357; Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. Grant, 86 Miss. 565, 38 So. 502.

VIII. No error in instructions. Cochran v. Peeler, 209 Miss. 394, 47 So.2d 806; Delta Cotton Oil Co. v. Elliott, 179 Miss. 200, 172 So. 737; Tynes v. McLendon, 235 Miss. 336, 108 So.2d 716.


Appellee brought this action in the Circuit Court of Forrest County against the Greyhound Corporation and the driver of its passenger bus, Cecil O. Strahan, and W.J. Folkes, owner of a stump truck, and Robert J. Naylor, the driver of the truck, to recover damages for personal injuries received by her as a result of a collision between the bus in which she was riding as a passenger and the stump truck. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellee in the amount of $40,000. From this judgment, all of the appellants appeal.

The collision occurred between the bus and the stump truck on April 29, 1959, at or near the intersection of U.S. Highway 11 and Highway 18 in the Town of Pachuta. The declaration alleged that Cecil O. Strahan, the driver of the bus, and Robert J. Naylor, the driver of the truck, were guilty of negligence in the operation of their vehicles and that as a result of their concurrent negligence at the intersection the collision and injuries to appellee resulted; that the truck operated by Naylor was heavily loaded with stumps and that as he approached the intersection on Highway 18 he caused the truck to be suddenly pulled to the left in order to avoid striking the bus, which had entered the intersection of Highway 18 and Highway 11 without stopping; that this caused the truck to turn over and the load of stumps collided and crushed the left side of the bus.

(Hn 1) The bus company and its driver, on the one hand, and the owner of the stump truck and its driver on the other, have filed separate briefs in this cause, each contending that the other was responsible for the collision. Both requested peremptory instructions in the court below and were refused. Both argue here that the court was in error in refusing the requested peremptory instruction. We are of the opinion that the court correctly submitted this cause to the jury, which was a typical case of negligence for their determination. Section 1455, Mississippi Code of 1942, provides that "All questions of negligence and contributory negligence shall be for the jury to determine." We are of the opinion that the evidence in this record amply supports the verdict of the jury.

All the appellants argue that the court erred in granting the appellee certain instructions. We have carefully examined all the instructions and find that when they are considered as one, the jury was furnished a correct and sufficient guide. The court was liberal in granting instructions to the appellants. Considering the large number of instructions together, we find no reversible error.

(Hn 2) Both appellants argue that the verdict is excessive. Mrs. Kindle was 49 years of age at the time of the accident. The evidence shows that she had suffered from circulatory trouble for a period of 14 years and had been treated by her physician, Dr. Gable, who testified in the cause. The appellee received serious injuries as a result of the collision; she was knocked from the left side to the right side of the bus; she suffered injuries from the left side of her head to her left ankle; she received a comminuted fracture of her left collarbone; she was carried in an ambulance from Pachuta to the hospital in Hattiesburg, where she remained twenty days. Her physician, Dr. Gable, was called, and he in turn called Dr. Conn, a specialist, who operated on her shoulder for the fractured collarbone and inserted a metal pin in order to hold the pieces of bone together, which pin remained in her shoulder until July 17, 1959. Dr. Conn and Dr. Gable testified in the case. Dr. Conn testified that on the evening of the collision he went to the hospital to examine appellee and that she was suffering from a nervous condition and shock, so much so that he did not operate until five days later. The record reflects the pain and suffering she had undergone by her own testimony and also the testimony of the two doctors. According to Dr. Conn, she has lost twenty percent use of her left shoulder, and her prior condition was aggravated as a result of her injuries.

We have carefully considered the record in this case and are of the opinion that we would not be warranted in disturbing the amount of the verdict since we do not think it was grossly excessive as to evince bias, prejudice or passion on the part of the jury.

In McDonald v. Moore, 159 Miss. 326, 131 So. 824, the Court said: "As to the amount of the verdict, it appears to be rather small for the injury, but compensation for injuries on the facts shown in this record is peculiarly one for the jury's judgment, and unless the jury is warped by passion or prejudice and we can so see from the record, we cannot control their judgment upon this proposition. Juries are better calculated to know the extent of the injuries and the amount of damages than the appellate court. Their verdict here was sanctioned by the judgment of the trial judge, which is also entitled to weight and respect. We therefore find no error suffered by the appellant sufficient to warrant the reversal of her cause."

We find no reversible error in this record and it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McGehee, C.J., and Kyle, Ethridge and Rodgers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Greyhound Corporation et al. v. Kindle

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Apr 10, 1961
240 Miss. 702 (Miss. 1961)
Case details for

Greyhound Corporation et al. v. Kindle

Case Details

Full title:GREYHOUND CORPORATION et al. v. KINDLE

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi

Date published: Apr 10, 1961

Citations

240 Miss. 702 (Miss. 1961)
128 So. 2d 567

Citing Cases

Henson Ford, Inc. v. Crews

Wm. E. Andrews, Jr., Purvis, for appellee. I. The Court was correct in overruling the motion for a judgment…

Philco Distributors, Inc. v. Herron

After considerable deliberation, we have reached the conclusion, however, that the verdict in this case is…