Home/Supreme Court of Virginia/Stephen Putney Shoe Co. v. Ormsby's Administrator

Stephen Putney Shoe Co. v. Ormsby's Administrator

105 S.E. 563, 129 Va. 297, 1921 Va. LEXIS 95
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedJanuary 28, 1921
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 105 S.E. 563 (Stephen Putney Shoe Co. v. Ormsby's Administrator) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stephen Putney Shoe Co. v. Ormsby's Administrator, 105 S.E. 563, 129 Va. 297, 1921 Va. LEXIS 95 (Va. 1921).

Opinion

Kelly, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

S. M. Ormsby was struck and seriously injured by a Ford truck owned by Stephen Putney Shoe Company, Incorporated, and driven by Thomas Cooper, a colored man in the employment of that company. Ormsby died shortly afterwards. An action for damages followed, in which his administrator recovered against the company a verdict and judgment for five thousand dollars.

The accident occurred in the city of Richmond, on the east side of Ninth street, a few feet north of the point where that street is intersected by the north line of the driveway leading east from the Capitol Square. The exit from the driveway, marked by two large posts on each side giving the appearance of an open gateway, is immediately opposite the eastern terminus of Grace street, and, except [299]*299for the fact that the driveway is not so wide as Grace street, the physical situation is the same as if Grace street extended beyond Ninth into the Capitol Square. On each side of the driveway is a sidewalk leading to. the sidewalk on the east side of Ninth street. The combined width of the sidewalks and driveway is practically equal to the width of Grace street from curb to curb. The situation will be better understood by reference to the accompanying sketch showing the intersection of the streets and the driveway in question.

Ormsby was coming out of the Capitol Square using the walk on the north side of the driveway and had reached the sidewalk on the east side of Ninth street about the time Cooper, driving the truck eastward on Grace, was approaching the intersection of Grace and Ninth. Ormsby was evidently intending to cross Ninth and go west on the north side of Grace. Cooper’s route was across and up Ninth on the east side. Ormsby walked out of the Capitol Square, proceeded almost straight across the walk on Ninth, stepped from the curb into the street, and was struck by the right front fender of the truck. Cooper had made the crossing and turn in the manner required by the traffic ordinance, proceeding as far as he could straight across Ninth, making a full turn, and proceeding up Ninth as close to the right hand curb as practicable. There were no other vehicles or pedestrians on the street or sidewalks between Ormsby and Cooper, and each was in clear and easy view of the other from the time Ormsby came out of the Square on the sidewalk. The substance of Cooper’s testimony is that he was not exceeding the lawful rate of speed either as he came down Grace or as he turned and went up Ninth; that Ormsby stepped from the curb only about three or four feet ahead of the truck; that he tried to save him by swerving quickly to the left; and that Ormsby “came against the fender” and was knocked down in that

[300]*300

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

Related

Shulleeter v. Tate
16 Va. Cir. 407 (Richmond City Circuit Court, 1967)
Lindberg v. Goode
108 S.E.2d 364 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1959)
Wolfe v. Lockhart
78 S.E.2d 654 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1953)
Reams v. Cone
59 S.E.2d 87 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1950)
Hooker v. Hancock
49 S.E.2d 711 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1948)
Thomas v. Goldman
167 F.2d 315 (Fourth Circuit, 1948)
Connell v. Petri
30 So. 2d 922 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1947)
Nelson v. Dayton
36 S.E.2d 535 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1946)
Armstrong v. McDonald
4 N.W.2d 191 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1942)
Yellow Cab Corp. v. Henderson
16 S.E.2d 389 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1941)
South Hill Motor Co. v. Gordon
200 S.E. 637 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1939)
Bennett v. Spencer
189 S.E. 169 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1937)
Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Ford
186 S.E. 84 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1936)
Frazier v. Stout
181 S.E. 377 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1935)
Bailey v. Fore
177 S.E. 100 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1934)
Eagan, B.N.F. v. Douglas
175 A. 222 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1934)
Moore v. Scott
169 S.E. 902 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1933)
Ebel v. Traylor
164 S.E. 721 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1932)
Lynchburg Traction & Light Co. v. Garbee
164 S.E. 391 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1932)
Heindl v. Perritt
163 S.E. 93 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 S.E. 563, 129 Va. 297, 1921 Va. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-putney-shoe-co-v-ormsbys-administrator-va-1921.