Opinion
No. 42391.
October 8, 1962.
1. Motor vehicles — intersectional collision — negligence — evidence — jury question.
The evidence in automobile collision case raised jury question as to whether automobile of plaintiff or that of defendant reached and entered intersection first.
Headnote as approved by McGehee, C.J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County; WILLIAM J. GUNN, JR., J.
Lester F. Williamson, Howard R. Pigford, Meridian, for appellant.
I. Cited and discussed the following authorities. Belk v. Rosamond, 213 Miss. 633, 57 So.2d 461; Brewer v. Anderson, 227 Miss. 330, 86 So.2d 365, 697; Cobb v. Williams, 228 Miss. 807, 90 So.2d 17; Coker v. Five-Two Taxi Service, 211 Miss. 820, 52 So.2d 356, 835; Gibson v. A.P. Lindsey, Distributor, Inc., 233 Miss. 853, 103 So.2d 345, 104 So.2d 456; Gray v. Felts, 241 Miss. 599, 131 So.2d 454; Jakup v. Lewis Grocery Co., 190 Miss. 444, 200 So. 597; Jefferson v. Pinson, 219 Miss. 427, 69 So.2d 234; Mathews v. Thompson, 231 Miss. 258, 95 So.2d 438; Murphy v. Latham, 210 Miss. 434, 49 So.2d 807; Sohio Petroleum Co. v. Fowler, 231 Miss. 72, 94 So.2d 359; Tant v. Fairchild, 228 Miss. 126, 87 So.2d 78, 905; Wayne County Mfg. Co. v. Shirley (Miss.), 15 So.2d 624; Williams v. Moses, 234 Miss. 453, 106 So.2d 45; Secs. 8195, 8197, Code 1942. Ethridge, Minniece Bourdeaux, Meridian, for appellee.
I. Cited and discussed the following authorities. Anderson v. A.E. Jenney Motor Co., 150 Minn. 358, 185 N.W. 378; Brayman v. DeWolf, 97 Pa. Super. 225; Herring v. Hart, 225 Miss. 115, 82 So.2d 710; Jefferson v. Pinson, 219 Miss. 427, 69 So.2d 234; Myrick v. Holifield, 240 Miss. 106, 126 So.2d 508; Shuman v. Hall, 246 N.Y. 51, 158 N.E. 16; Whatley v. Boolas, 180 Miss. 372, 177 So. 1; Secs. 8195, 8197, Code 1942; Chap. 200, Laws 1938; Anno. 175 A.L.R. 1013; 2 Blashfield, Cyc. of Automobile Law Practice, Secs. 9991-9995 pp. 206-236.
This case was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County and resulted in a verdict being rendered in favor of the defendant Mrs. Lois J. Miller. The plaintiff Rutledge appeals.
(Hn 1) The plaintiff was traveling northward on Ninth Avenue in the City of Meridian and the defendant was traveling in a westerly direction on Eighteenth Street. The testimony is in sharp conflict as to whether the automobile of the plaintiff or that of the defendant reached and entered the intersection first. We have carefully studied and considered all of the testimony in the case and we have concluded that this is a case peculiarly suited for the determination of the issue of fact by the jury. In view of all of the facts in the case we are unable to agree that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the testimony. In other words, we think that the verdict and judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Kyle, Gillespie, McElroy and Jones, JJ., concur.