Norris v. Lough

251 N.W. 646, 217 Iowa 362
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedDecember 12, 1933
DocketNo. 42029.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 251 N.W. 646 (Norris v. Lough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Norris v. Lough, 251 N.W. 646, 217 Iowa 362 (iowa 1933).

Opinion

Evans, J.

The grounds of the motion included that of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, and of the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant. In view of our conclusion on the question of contributory negligence, we shall have no occasion to consider other questions.

The personnel involved in the evidence, other than the decedent himself, are W. H. Johnson, Victor Johnson, Emmet Moulton, George Welden, and Peter Brummer. The accident happened upon a so-called “dirt road” in the village of Magnolia. The time of the accident was February 6, at 10:30 a. m. The road in question extended east and west through the village. The place of accident was at a point about three blocks west of the business part of the village. W. H. Johnson came to the place of the accident by appointment with George Welden, for the purposes of a business transaction. The two Johnsons and Moulton came together in *363 a car from the east and parked on the north side of the street. Welden and Brummer came together in a car from the west and parked their car on the south side of the street, leaving a space of 10 or 12 feet between the cars. Norris, the decedent, came to the place afoot. He was walking east along the south side of the road and slopped to converse with the persons there gathered. The defendant, Lough, was the operator of the truck. He came from the east with a load of 150 bushels of shelled corn. The place of the accident was a short space of fifty or a hundred feet between two hills, — one to the east and the other to the west. To the top of the hill on the east was a distance of about 300 feet. To the top of the hill on the west was a distance of about 200 feet. There was a well-marked traveled track on the road and the defendant was occupying this track as he approached the Welden car. The Welden car was parked just south of this track but close to it. There had been a recent snowfall. The weather was warm and a thawing process was going on. The hill to the east and the upper slope thereof was dry. The lower slope of the hill, and the level ground between that and Welden’s automobile, was very slippery as a result of the thawing and caused more or less skidding of the truck with its load. W. H. Johnson had crossed the street to the Welden car and was there engaged in conversation with Welden at the lime that Norris approached and at the time that defendant’s truck appeared over the hill to the east. As the truck approached the Welden car on the traveled track, Johnson took a position on Welden’s running board and Norris crowded up to Johnson as closely as he could. The front end of the truck cleared the Welden car, but the rear end brushed the car and caught both Johnson and Norris in its sweep. The. evidence tends to show that Lough believed he could pass the. Welden car safely by drawing away to the right. Johnson and Norris appeared to have believed to the same effect. But because of the slippery condition of the street, Lough was unable to hold his truck from contact with the Welden car.

The foregoing outline is sufficient to enable an understanding of the evidence hereinafter quoted. The following quotations from the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses will indicate the general situation of the parties at the time of the accident, better than we can summarize it:

Plaintiff’s witness W. H. Johnson, after stating that he saw ihe approach of Lough’s truck, testified as follows:

*364 “He was approximately 300 feet from me when I noticed it. The truck was traveling approximately 20 miles an hour. When I noticed this truck coming from the east I stepped upon the.running board of Welden’s car and' Harry Norris was right at my side at that time. That would be to my right as I faced south. The truck was 150 feet from me when I stepped on the running board at the time. When the truck was 300 feet away from me it was on the south side of the road and it was on the south side of the road when it was 150 feet from me. As the truck approached the last half of the distance the wheels of the truck were not pointing directly in the track but were pointing northwest. I think the truck slowed down a little as it approached us. Mr. Lough endeavored to turn his truck out so that the car was at an angle and the truck struck me standing on the side of the coupe as it was about half past me. Just before the sounding of the horn on the truck my son moved my automobile which was parked at the north side of the highway about 75 or 100 feet to the west. After the truck struck me Mr. Norris was lying ten or twelve feet behind me.”

Cross-examination.

“For a distance of about 150 feet the front wheels of the truck were sliding not in a rut, but the road was slippery as it was thawing very much at that timé. There were no obstructions to prevent me from stepping over to the north side of the road and there was nothing on the south side of the road except the automobile that was parked there to prevent me from going to the south side of the road. I observed the truck for approximately 150 feet. It was going sideways and appeared to be skidding.

“Q. You and Mr. Norris and the people there were watching the truck? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. And Mr. Norris was watching it? A. I think he would be.

“Q. That is your judgment about it? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. And you observed there, at least for a distance of 150 feet, that its wheels were sliding in a rut there — the front wheels? A. Yes, -sir.

“Q. And Mr. Norris was standing there with you in that track? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. Looking towards the truck? A. Yes, sir,”

Plaintiff’s witness Peter Brummer testified:

*365 “Welden and I did not get out of the Welden automobile. We rolled the glass down and talked to Mr. Johnson. We talked a few minutes when Mr. Norris came up to the road. I did not see him until he got opposite our automobile and he spoke to Mr. Johnson. At that time I saw the truck driven by Earl Lough coming towards us. It was an International truck with a grain box on it. It was on the top of the hill when I first saw it. I watched it coming down the hill and saw it coming towards us. I saw that the wheels were cramped to the right when it was about 100 feet from us. It was on the south side of the road. The surface was awfully slippery. It was thawing and the road was greasy that morning. The front wheels of the truck looked like they were locked and they were skidding. Mr. Johnson stepped up on the running hoard and Mr. Norris leaned over the back part of the fender stooped over like. When the truck came up the top part of the box rubbed over the fender and swept them off. I looked over the back part and Mr. Johnson was thrown over Mr. Norris about 25 feet and Mr. Norris was thrown 10 feet, and the truck dragged him back.”

“The track on the top of the hill was in the center, but as it came down it was more to the south. The road was dry at the top hut the slippery condition increased as it went down hill. I heard a horn sounded on the truck and I saw the truck when it started to come down the hill about 300 feet. I had no difficulty in seeing the truck and in seeing the wheels were locked. Mr. Norris did not move from the position in which he was standing. He just leaned over the car. Before the collision, in my best judgment, Mr.

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

Related

Hicks v. Burch
2 N.W.2d 277 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1942)
Fotterall v. Hilleary
13 A.2d 358 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1940)
Yale v. Hanson
288 N.W. 905 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1939)
Cumming v. Dosland
288 N.W. 647 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1939)
O'Meara v. Green Construction Co.
282 N.W. 735 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1938)
Murchland v. Jones
279 N.W. 382 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1938)
Hedberg v. Lester
270 N.W. 447 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1936)
Stawsky v. Wheaton
263 N.W. 313 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1935)
Fortman v. McBride
263 N.W. 845 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 N.W. 646, 217 Iowa 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-lough-iowa-1933.