Opinion
No. 41929.
October 2, 1961.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of George County; LESLIE B. GRANT, J.
W.S. Murphy, Lucedale, for appellant.
I. The stopping of defendants' truck on United States Highway No. 98, in the west bound traffic lane was a contributing cause of plaintiff's injuries.
II. There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury, and if appellees' negligence proximately contributed to the injury, defendants are liable even though their negligence was not the sole proximate cause thereof. Brewer v. Town of Lucedale, 189 Miss. 374, 198 So. 42; Cumberland Tel. Tel. Co. v. Woodham, 99 Miss. 318, 54 So. 890; Fant v. Commercial Carriers, Inc., 210 Miss. 474, 49 So.2d 887; Greenville v. Laury, 172 Miss. 118, 159 So. 121; Holmes v. T.M. Strider Co., 186 Miss. 380, 189 So. 518; Solomon v. Continental Baking Co., 172 Miss. 388, 160 So. 732; Superior Oil Co. v. Richmond, 172 Miss. 407, 159 So. 850; Tri-State Transit Co. v. Martin, 181 Miss. 388, 179 So. 349; Secs. 8146, 8175, 8178, 8215.
III. The driver of the truck of appellees was under a duty, like the operator of any other vehicle on the highway, not only to observe and comply with the statutory requirements of Sections 8215 and 8256, but was also under a duty to exercise due care not to endanger the safety of persons using the highway and such duty to exercise due care existed independently of any statutory regulations. Belk v. Rosamond, 213 Miss. 633, 57 So.2d 461; Brent v. Heath, 235 Miss. 324, 109 So.2d 314; Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Klaas, 217 Miss. 795, 65 So.2d 575; Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Williams, 226 Miss. 624, 85 So.2d 179; Davidson v. Knight (Miss.), 29 So.2d 656; Planters Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Kincade, 210 Miss. 712, 50 So.2d 578; Teche Lines v. Danford, 195 Miss. 226, 12 So.2d 784; 29 Cyc. 492-496.
W.T. Bailey, Lucedale; Rae Bryant, Gulfport, for appellees.
I. The evidence shows, without dispute, that the truck of Gordons Transports, Inc., driven by Willis Bridges, came to a temporary pause because of temporary motor failure occasioned by emergency and does not sustain allegation of negligence alleging negligence charged them for the voluntarily stopping of the vehicle in violation of statute, the statute only denouncing voluntary stoppage. Beech v. Union Brewing Corp. (La.), 187 So. 332; Bottenberg Implement Co. v. Sheffield, 171 Kan. 67, 229 P.2d 1004; Calloway v. Kryzen, 228 Wis. 53, 279 N.W. 702; Fant v. Commercial Carriers, Inc., 210 Miss. 478, 49 So.2d 887; Fitzpatrick v. California Hawaiian Sugar Refinery Corp., 309 Ill. App. 215, 32 N.E.2d 990; Horn v. Barras (La.), 172 So. 451; Howell v. Kansas City Southern Transport Co. (La.), 66 So.2d 646; Jennings v. Mueller Transport Co., 268 Wis. 622, 68 N.W.2d 565; Martin v. National Mutual Cas. Co. (Kan.), 217 P.2d 1055; Rath v. Bankston, 101 Cal.App. 74, 281 P. 1081; Ricker v. Danner, 159 Neb. 675, 68 N.W.2d 338; Tate v. Hall, 247 Ky. 843, 57 S.W.2d 986; Winn v. Cudahy Packing Co. (Ala.), 4 So.2d 135; Woodcock v. Home Mutual Cas. Co., 253 Wis. 178, 33 N.W.2d 202; Sec. 8215, Code 1942.
II. The negligence of the defendant, Ansel Smith, was the sole proximate cause of the injuries and damages complained of by the plaintiff herein because all other persons saw the stopped traffic in front of them and brought their vehicles to a stop, whereas the said Ansel Smith failed to keep his automobile under control and failed to stop as required by the law and ran into the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle, and his actions were independent of any action of the other two defendants and was the sole proximate cause of Mr. Miller's injuries. Fant v. Commercial Carriers, Inc., supra.
This case is controlled by the case of Fant, et al. v. Commercial Carriers, et al., 210 Miss. 474, 49 So.2d 887.
Affirmed.
McGehee, C.J., and Ethridge, McElroy and Rodgers, JJ., concur.