Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Clarence O. Higgins v. Allen Eugene Thompson and McLean Trucking Company, 391 F.2d 246, 4th Cir. (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The plaintiff, Clarence O. Higgins, appealed a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in a car accident case. Higgins was in the first vehicle in a line of cars stopped behind a school bus when he attempted a left turn across the highway. The defendant, driving a tractor-trailer truck, was approaching from behind and collided with Higgins' vehicle as he completed his turn. The district court found Higgins contributorily negligent for failing to ensure the turn could be made safely. However, the appellate court found that based on Higgins' testimony that the road was clear when he looked, and that physical obstructions may have prevented him seeing the approaching truck, there were jury questions around primary negligence and contributory negligence

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Clarence O. Higgins v. Allen Eugene Thompson and McLean Trucking Company, 391 F.2d 246, 4th Cir. (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    The plaintiff, Clarence O. Higgins, appealed a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in a car accident case. Higgins was in the first vehicle in a line of cars stopped behind a school bus when he attempted a left turn across the highway. The defendant, driving a tractor-trailer truck, was approaching from behind and collided with Higgins' vehicle as he completed his turn. The district court found Higgins contributorily negligent for failing to ensure the turn could be made safely. However, the appellate court found that based on Higgins' testimony that the road was clear when he looked, and that physical obstructions may have prevented him seeing the approaching truck, there were jury questions around primary negligence and contributory negligence

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1968-02-21 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 391 F.2d 246 Docket: 11651

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff, Clarence O. Higgins, appealed a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in a car accident case. Higgins was in the first vehicle in a line of cars stopped behind a school bus when he attempted a left turn across the highway. The defendant, driving a tractor-trailer truck, was approaching from behind and collided with Higgins' vehicle as he completed his turn. The district court found Higgins contributorily negligent for failing to ensure the turn could be made safely. However, the appellate court found that based on Higgins' testimony that the road was clear when he looked, and that physical obstructions may have prevented him seeing the approaching truck, there were jury questions around primary negligence and contributory negligence

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    9 views3 pages

    Clarence O. Higgins v. Allen Eugene Thompson and McLean Trucking Company, 391 F.2d 246, 4th Cir. (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The plaintiff, Clarence O. Higgins, appealed a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in a car accident case. Higgins was in the first vehicle in a line of cars stopped behind a school bus when he attempted a left turn across the highway. The defendant, driving a tractor-trailer truck, was approaching from behind and collided with Higgins' vehicle as he completed his turn. The district court found Higgins contributorily negligent for failing to ensure the turn could be made safely. However, the appellate court found that based on Higgins' testimony that the road was clear when he looked, and that physical obstructions may have prevented him seeing the approaching truck, there were jury questions around primary negligence and contributory negligence

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    391 F.

    2d 246

    Clarence O. HIGGINS, Appellant,


    v.
    Allen Eugene THOMPSON and McLean Trucking Company,
    Appellees.
    No. 11651.

    United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.


    Argued January 8, 1968.
    Decided February 21, 1968.

    William O. Roberts, Jr., Lexington, Va. (J. Frank Shepherd, Lynchburg,


    Va., on brief), for appellant.
    Wm. Rosenberger, Jr., Lynchburg, Va., for appellees.
    Before SOBELOFF, BRYAN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
    ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge:

    In this automobile collision case the District Court directed a verdict, and
    entered judgment, for the defendant. The basis of the ruling was that the
    plaintiff, Clarence O. Higgins, was guilty of contributory negligence when he
    turned his car out of a standing line of automobiles, in the right-hand lane of the
    highway, just as a tractor-trailer driven by the defendant Allen Eugene
    Thompson, owned by the defendant McLean Trucking Company, was about to
    pass from behind. On the plaintiff's appeal we reverse; we think the evidence
    tendered a jury question on primary and contributory negligence.

    The testimony suggests the following fact pattern: About 3:00 P.M. on October
    9, 1964, 1 miles west of Lexington, Virginia, a school bus headed east had
    stopped on the right-hand side of U. S. Route 60 and opposite a private road
    entering on the left. A line of vehicles then came to a halt behind the bus. For
    convenience of reference the vehicles behind the bus will be designated by
    number. Immediately to the rear of the bus was a pick-up truck (1) driven by
    plaintiff Higgins and carrying a woman and child as passengers. Next in order
    behind was a gasoline tank truck (2) operated by Paul Sorrells; then an

    unidentified car (3); and lastly the car (4) of Betty Moore. After discharging its
    passengers the school bus continued eastward on Route 60, which in that
    vicinity is 20 feet wide; the unidentified car (3) pulled from the left lane and
    passed all the vehicles ahead of it, including the school bus. Immediately then
    the plaintiff, whose turn signals had been indicating an impending left turn,
    looked in his side view mirror; saw no traffic approaching in the left lane from
    behind; extended his left hand in further indication of an intended turn; and
    then on a left turn crossed Route 60 and entered the private road.
    3

    Meanwhile the defendant driver of the tractor-trailer truck, approaching from


    the rear, observed the column of traffic stopped behind the school bus which
    had just begun to move eastward again and saw the unidentified car (3), the
    second vehicle behind plaintiff's pick-up, come out from and pass the vehicles
    in line ahead. The overtaking tractor-trailer then signaled a left turn, steered into
    the highway's left lane and, when in a position approximately opposite and
    parallel with the Moore car (4), first saw plaintiff commencing a left turn.
    Thereupon the tractor-trailer sounded its horn, and turning left on to the gravel
    shoulder of the road collided with the left side of plaintiff's pick-up truck which
    had just completed the left turn into the private road.

    At the close of the plaintiff's case the Court sustained defendant's motion for a
    directed verdict. The judge believed the evidence conclusively showed that the
    plaintiff had trangressed the commandment of 46.1-216 Va.Code, 1950 (1967
    Replacement Volume) that:

    "Every driver who intends to start, back, stop, turn or partly turn from a direct
    line shall first see that such movement can be made in safety. * * *"

    But since the plaintiff had testified that the road to his rear was clear before he
    commenced his turn, the Court was not entitled to take from the jury the
    question whether this was true. In addition, there were physical circumstances,
    such as a curve behind the line of cars, and the tank truck or the other cars in
    the column, which could have obscured the plaintiff's view of the tractor-trailer
    as it approached. Apparently the District Judge believed the plaintiff had
    conclusively convicted himself when he said he did not see what the
    defendant's evidence pointed out was there to be seen. However, by the not
    insubstantial proof of the plaintiff that without fault on his part the tractortrailer was not earlier visible to him, an issue was made as to whether his action
    was careless.

    As in Hopkins et al. v. Pearce, 115 F. 2d 784, 786 (4 Cir. 1940),

    "[w]e conclude that under the circumstances the actions of the plaintiff, to say
    the least, were not so clearly negligent as to require a directed verdict on the
    issue of contributory negligence."

    The Court is required to view the testimony in the light most favorable to the
    plaintiff and where there is conflicting evidence a directed verdict cannot stand.

    10

    We vacate the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

    11

    Reversed and remanded.

    You might also like