Crunk v. Grooms

450 S.W.2d 15, 60 Tenn. App. 611, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 334
CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedAugust 1, 1969
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 450 S.W.2d 15 (Crunk v. Grooms) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crunk v. Grooms, 450 S.W.2d 15, 60 Tenn. App. 611, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 334 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

THE CASE

SHRIVER, J.

These cases were filed to recover damages growing out of a three-car collision that occurred in Davidson County, Tennessee. They came on for trial before the Honorable Roy A. Miles, Judge, and a jury on September 30, 1968 in the First Circuit Court of Davidson County and, after four days of trial, the Jury returned verdicts as follows:

In the action of James G. Grooms vs. Dwight G. Crunk and Brum Frank Peyton, the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff Grooms against the defendant Dwight G. Crunk in the amount of $3,000.00 compensatory damages.

In the actions of Dwight G. Crunk, b/n/f, etc. and William G. Crunk vs. J. B. Peyton and Brum Frank Peyton, the verdict was in favor of the defendants Peyton.

In the action of J. B. Peyton vs. Dwight G. Crunk, the verdict was in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $600.00.

Judgments were entered on the verdicts and after motions for new trials were overruled the causes were appealed in error to this Court and assignments filed.

THE FACTS

The record herein discloses the following pertinent facts:

(1) The three-car accident which gave rise to these cases occurred on July 30, 1966 at approximately 8:00 [614]*614P.M. at tlie intersection of Harding Place and Danby Drive in Nashville. Harding Place which runs generally East and West is a four-lane highway 52 feet wide including a painted median strip 4 feet wide, while Danby Drive which runs generally North and South is a two-lane street that intersects Harding Place at right angles.

(2) At the time of the accident there were stop signs on Danby Drive for traffic moving from that street into Harding Place.

Brum Prank Peyton in an automobile belonging to his father, J. B. Peyton, was driving in a southerly direction on Danby Drive when he came to the intersection of Harding Place where he stopped, intending to cross the westbound lanes of Harding Place and turn left into the eastbound lanes of that street; He stated that when he stopped at Harding Place he could see the headlights of another car coming over the hill and that it was at such distance that he thought he had plenty of time to cross the intersection in safety. He stated that the top of the hill was about 1,000 feet to his left and that one could actually see about 600 feet in that direction. However, he stated further that when he saw the headlights of the car that struck him it was about 1,000 feet away. He pulled out into the intersection and was struck by the Crunk automobile at or near the center of Harding Place, there being some evidence to the effect that the collision occurred on the inside lane for Eastbound traffic. The officer who went to the scene of the accident testified that all the debris was in the southern half of the intersection and there were no skid marks behind the Crunk car.

(3) The second collision occurred when the Crunk automobile, after first colliding with the Peyton automo[615]*615bile, proceeded to its left at an angle across Harding Place and into tbe path of the Grooms automobile which was proceeding Eastwardly on Harding Place, this being very nearly a head-on collision. The speed limit at this point was 40 miles an hoar and Grooms stated to Officer Bryant that he didn’t know how fast he was traveling at the time but didn’t think he was going in excess of 50 miles an hoar. Skid marks from his vehicle were about 63 feet long.

(4) Dwight G. Crank, a young man 20 years of age, had previously left an apartment house approximately 1,900 feet from Danby Drive in a hurried manner and, according to Officer Merlin, who testified about it, his car was expelling gravel against the patrol car some 15 or 20 feet away, and he accelerated all the way to the top of the rise as he proceeded in a westerly direction and until he got out of sight of the officer in the patrol car. Officer Merlin followed Crunk and, coming over the rise, discovered the collision that had just occurred.

(5) The Grooms automobile sustained damages of $2,210.00. The Crunk automobile was a total loss, and the Peyton car sustained damages of $600.00.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

There are three assignments which may be summarized as follows:

(1) The court erred in admitting questions and answers over the objection of plaintiffs-in-error as to two prior speeding violations of Dwight G. Crunk;

(2) The court erred in allowing the testimony of the witness Stewart and in refusing to instruct the jury to disregard such testimony after it was given, said testi[616]*616mony being incompetent because the witness was unable to identify the driver or the automobile which he said was going 70 miles an hour and which plaintiff sought to show was the automobile of plaintiff-in-error Crunk.

(3) The verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

In support of the first assignment it is insisted by counsel for plaintiff-in-error, Crunk, that, over vigorous objection, he was allowed to be asked repeated questions concerning prior traffic violations and, in support of their argument, they cite the cases of Mitchell v. Farr, 32 Tenn.App. 200, 222 S.W.2d 218 and Davis v. Wicker, 206 Tenn. 403, 333 S.W.2d 921.

On July 30, 1967, the discovery deposition of Dwight Gr. Crunk was taken and in said deposition, without objection, he was asked if he had ever been given any tickets for moving violations, to which he answered that he was given a citation for driving a motorcycle without mufflers and that that was the only citation he remembered having gotten.

At the trial, in the absence of the jury, he was questioned about prior violations and his testimony revealed the following:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Zona Mayo v. Donna L. Shine, M.D.
392 S.W.3d 61 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2012)
State of Tennessee v. Stacey Wayne Creekmore
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2009
Overstreet v. Shoney's, Inc.
4 S.W.3d 694 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1999)
Sarah Beth Clingan Overstreet v. Shoney's, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1994

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
450 S.W.2d 15, 60 Tenn. App. 611, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crunk-v-grooms-tennctapp-1969.