Postier v. Landau

VALLÉE, J.

Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment entered on a verdict of a jury in an action for damages for personal injuries and damage to property arising out of a collision between two automobiles.

The only assignment of error is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Pursuant to the frequently repeated rule, the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom will be stated in the light most favorable to defendant-respondent.

The accident occurred about 12 ¡30 p. m. on January 11, 1951, in the apex of a curve on the East Rim Drive of the Grand Canyon, a snow-covered highway in Arizona. The day was overcast, but visibility was good. The highway at the scene of the collision was 18 feet wide in pavement, with shoulders on both sides. It was covered with about four inches of fresh snow. The center line was not visible. The pavement was slippery. There was only one set of auto tracks in the snow on the highway. There was not a set for eastbound traffic and another for westbound. The tracks were in the center of the highway for the most part, except where they rounded the curve at the scene of the accident—where they were on the north or right-hand side when going in a westerly direction. The highway was fairly level although it was banked upward to the south side around the curve. On the north side there was a shallow ditch abutting the shoulder.

Plaintiff-husband, referred to as plaintiff, was driving a Buiek in a westerly direction in the tracks in the snow, traveling from 25 to 30 miles an hour. He had been traveling between four and five hours that day, mostly in snow, but did not have chains on his wheels, although he had them in the car. Defendant was driving a Chevrolet in an easterly direction in the tracks, traveling about 15 miles an hour. Plaintiff observed defendant’s car when it was about 200 feet away. Defendant observed plaintiff’s car when it was from 100 to 150 feet away; applied his brakes slowing down

[100]

to between. 5 and 7 miles an hour. As plaintiff’s ear approached that of defendant’s, it speeded up. When the cars were from 30 to 40 feet apart, plaintiff’s ear was “coming” toward defendant’s side of the highway. Defendant then applied his brakes with greater force. Plaintiff’s car crossed the imaginary center and ran into defendant’s car which “was practically stopped at the time of the impact.” The impact bounced the two cars from 25 to 30 feet apart— plaintiff’s back in the direction he had been coming, and defendant’s back in the direction he had been coming and to the north side of the highway. After the collision “the snow was pretty well messed up in there.” The ears “had thrown the snow around so you couldn’t identify each track.” The front end of the Buick was “badly smashed”; the chrome grille was scattered around in the snow. The Chevrolet “wasn’t hurt near as bad”; the left-hand fender and part of the grillwork were damaged.