From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams, et al. v. James

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Mar 7, 1955
78 So. 2d 475 (Miss. 1955)


No. 39518.

March 7, 1955.

1. Motor vehicles — collision — evidence — verdict for plaintiff — taxicab driver negligent.

In action for personal injuries sustained in accident involving taxicab, evidence warranted finding by jury for plaintiff, that accident complained of and injuries sustained by plaintiff were due solely to negligence of driver of taxicab, in view of rate of speed at which he was traveling and weather conditions which prevailed.

2. Instructions — evidence — damages.

In such case, the instructions, when considered as a whole, fairly presented to jury a correct announcement of the law as applied to the facts at issue; the verdict was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and the damages awarded were reasonable for injuries complained of.

Headnotes as approved by McGehee, C.J.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Madison County; M.M. McGOWAN, Judge.

Ray, Spivey Cain, Canton, for appellants.

I. The verdict was contrary to the law and the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Beard v. Williams, 172 Miss. 880, 161 So. 750; Belk v. Rosamond, 213 Miss. 633, 57 So.2d 461; Brahan v. State (Miss.), 96 F.2d 210; Brown v. State, 153 Miss. 737, 121 So. 297; Columbus G. Ry. Co. v. Buford, 150 Miss. 832, 116 So. 817; Drake v. Surget, 36 Miss. 458; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Mitchell, 201 Miss. 696, 29 So.2d 88; Fore v. Alabama V.R.R. Co., 87 Miss. 211, 39 So. 493; Jakup v. Lewis Grocery Co., 190 Miss. 444, 200 So. 597; McQueen v. Bostwick, 20 Miss. 604, 12 Sm. M. 604; Mobile O.R.R. Co. v. Bennett, 127 Miss. 413, 90 So. 113; Sims v. McIntyre, 8 Sm. M. 324; Thomas v. Williamson, 185 Miss. 83, 187 So. 220; Universal Truck Loading Co. v. Taylor, 178 Miss. 143, 172 So. 756; Sec. 8196, Code 1942; 66 C.J.S. pp. 251, 521.

II. The instructions given by the Trial Judge on behalf of appellee were erroneous, harmful and prejudicial. Harris v. McCuiston, 217 Miss. 601, 64 So.2d 692; Moore v. Abdalla, 197 Miss. 125, 19 So.2d 502; Mutual Benefit Health Acc. Assn. v. Johnson, (Miss.), 186 So. 297, 298.

Jack M. Greaves, Canton, for appellee.

I. The evidence presented at the hearing was squarely in conflict on the issue of liability, raising a question for the jury to decide. Citizens' Oil Co., Inc. v. McCallum, 140 Miss. 764, 106 So. 443; Continental Southern Lines v. Klaas, 217 Miss. 795, 65 So.2d 584; Delta Cotton Oil Co. v. Elliott, 179 Miss. 200, 172 So. 737; Harding v. Blakenship, 264 N.W. 312; Randall v. Skinner, 187 Miss. 602, 192 So. 341; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Dyson, 207 Miss. 639, 43 So.2d 95; Terry v. Smylie, 161 Miss. 31, 133 So. 662; Sec. 8196, Code 1942; Anno. 108 F.2d 854; 60 C.J.S., Sec. 291 p. 647; 61 C.J.S., Sec. 527 pp. 455, 542; Vol. I, Alexander's Miss. Jury Instructions, Sec. 676 p. 190; Mississippi Highway Patrol Driver's Handbook, p. 15.

II. No error in the instructions. Daniel v. Livingstone, 168 Miss. 311, 150 So. 663; McMinn v. Lilly, 215 Miss. 193, 60 So.2d 608; Terry v. Smylie, supra; Ulmer v. Pistole, 115 Miss. 485, 76 So. 522; 60 C.J.S. 865.

(Hn 1) We have carefully studied the testimony in this case and have concluded that an issue of fact was presented for the determination of the jury on the conflicting testimony when considered in connection with certain undisputed facts in the case. The Court is also of the opinion that the jury was warranted in finding that the accident complained of and the personal injuries sustained were due solely to the negligence of the driver of the taxicab in view of the rate of speed at which he was travelling and the weather conditions which prevailed on that occasion.

(Hn 2) The Court has also carefully considered the instructions to the jury on behalf of the plaintiff which are complained of by the defendant, but we are of the opinion that when these instructions are considered in connection with those obtained by the defendant, the instructions as a whole had the effect of fairly presenting to the jury a correct announcement of the law as applied to the facts at issue; that the verdict of the jury on behalf of the plaintiff is supported by a preponderance of the evidence; and that the judgment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby, affirmed as a reasonable compensation for the injuries complained of.


Hall, Lee, Kyle, and Holmes, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

Williams, et al. v. James

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Mar 7, 1955
78 So. 2d 475 (Miss. 1955)
Case details for

Williams, et al. v. James

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAMS, et al. v. JAMES

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi

Date published: Mar 7, 1955


78 So. 2d 475 (Miss. 1955)
78 So. 2d 475

Citing Cases

Walker Const. Co. v. Const. Mach. Corp.

ON SUGGESTION OF ERROR March 16, 1955 78 So.2d 475 7. Appeal — attachment — principal and surety —…

Meo v. Miller

I. This is a typical intersection case where the evidence was disputed and was properly submitted to the…