(DOWNLOAD) "Frank Thorne v. Virgil Dean Thorne and" by Supreme Court of Missouri Division 2 # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Frank Thorne v. Virgil Dean Thorne and
- Author : Supreme Court of Missouri Division 2
- Release Date : January 13, 1961
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
The present suit is one for personal injuries. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against both defendants for $31,750 ""for personal injuries"" and $1,000 ""as property damage,"" upon the purported verdict of a jury. The legal sufficiency of that verdict is the principal question raised here. A very brief statement of the facts will suffice. Plaintiff, accompanied by a passenger, was driving his Ford pickup truck west along the north half of Guinotte Avenue in Kansas City at about 4:45 on the afternoon of April 9, 1959; he had slowed almost to a stop, or perhaps had stopped, in order to make a left turn into the driveway of a filling station on the south side of the street; he was in the inside lane of the north half of the four-lane street, waiting for the oncoming traffic to clear. He testified that his left turn signal was operating and had been so operating for nearly half a block, and that his stop was gradual. Defendant Thorne, driving a tractor trailer unit with a sixteen-ton load behind plaintiff and in the same direction, ran into the rear of plaintiff's vehicle and knocked it across the center line of the street into a head-on collision with an oncoming car. It is conceded that the defendant Thorne was acting as an agent for the other defendant. The identity of the surnames of plaintiff and the individual defendant is purely coincidental. Defendants were charged with negligence in sundry respects, including negligent lookout, negligent speed and a negligent failure to stop, slow or swerve so as to avoid the collision. Defendants do not claim here that plaintiff failed to make a submissible case. Contributory negligence was an issue at the trial, but that question is in no way involved here.