Opinion
No. 43415.
March 8, 1965.
1. Motor vehicles — negligence — proper lookout — intersection collision — automobile and minor bicyclist — jury question.
Question whether motorist, whose automobile struck minor bicyclist at intersection, was negligent, particularly in failing to see bicyclist, was for jury.
2. Negligence — proximate cause — intersection collision — automobile and minor bicyclist — jury question.
Question whether fact that bicycle had no lights on it was sole, proximate cause of accident which occurred when automobile struck minor bicyclist in intersection, was for jury in action against motorist for injuries sustained by bicyclist. Sec. 8229.01, Code 1942.
Headnotes as approved by Rodgers, J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Lamar County; SEBE DALE, J.
Lawrence D. Arrington, Hattiesburg; William E. Andrews, Purvis, for appellant.
I. The Court erred in granting certain instructions of the defendant.
II. The verdict of the jury and the judgment of the Court are contrary to the law and the evidence.
III. The verdict of the jury and the judgment of the Court are contrary to the overwhelming preponderance and weight of the evidence.
Collation of authorities: Interstate Life Accident Co. v. Cooley, 150 Miss. 502, 117 So. 267; J.W. Sanders Cotton Mill v. Moody, 189 Miss. 284, 195 So. 683; Kneale v. Lopez Dukate, 93 Miss. 201, 46 So. 715; Moak v. Black, 230 Miss. 337, 92 So.2d 845; Williams v. City of Gulfport, 162 Miss. 334, 141 So. 288; Williams v. Hood, 237 Miss. 355, 114 So.2d 854.
Simrall, Aultman Pope, Hattiesburg, for appellee.
I. The instructions of the Court, being considered as a whole, being read and considered together, fairly present the law applicable to the issues submitted to the jury, and properly deal with evidence admitted by the Court.
II. The verdict of the jury is adequately supported by competent evidence in the record, is responsive to the overwhelming preponderance and the great weight of the evidence.
III. The overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record required a verdict from the jury favorable to the defendant, and this verdict having been returned, and judgment having been duly entered thereon, and there being no evidence which could support a contrary verdict, it becomes the duty of this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Collation of authorities: Buford v. O'Neal, 240 Miss. 883, 128 So.2d 553; Cochran v. Peeler, 209 Miss. 394, 47 So.2d 806; Horton v. Jones, 208 Miss. 257, 44 So.2d 397; Lynch v. American Slicing Machine Co., 204 Miss. 515, 32 So.2d 546; Moak v. Black, 230 Miss. 337, 92 So.2d 845; Murchison, a Minor v. Sykes, 223 Miss. 754, 78 So.2d 888; Phillips v. The Dow Chemical Co., 247 Miss. 293, 151 So.2d 199; Wallace v. J.C. Penney Co., 236 Miss. 359, 111 So.2d 262; Williams v. Hood, 237 Miss. 355, 114 So.2d 854; Wyman v. Estate of Jones, Deceased (Miss.), 163 So.2d 698; Secs. 8149, 8229-01(a, e), Code 1942.
This is another of those sad cases in which a small child riding a bicycle collides with an automobile at an intersection. The accident occurred at twilight. Appellant claimed it was daylight, and appellee claimed it was after dark, or at least after the time when the law (Mississippi Code Annotated section 8229.01 1956) required that bicycles used upon the highways of Mississippi be equipped with lights and reflectors.
(Hn 1) The issue upon the trial was clearly drawn as to whether or not the appellee automobile driver was negligent, particularly in failing to see appellant, (Hn 2) or whether or not the fact that the bicycle had no lights was the sole, proximate cause of the accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee-defendant.
We are convinced from a careful reading of the record in the instant case that the issue involved was clearly a question for the jury and that the instructions complained of by appellant were properly given to the jury. The case at bar is largely controlled by the opinion on a similar statement of fact in the case of Murchison v. Sykes, 223 Miss. 754, 78 So.2d 888 (1955). See also Jones v. Dees, 241 Miss. 540, 131 So.2d 436 (1961).
The verdict and judgment of the trial court will therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Kyle, P.J., and Ethridge, Brady and Inzer, JJ., concur.