Vought v. Jones

16 Citing cases

  1. Mills v. Mealey

    274 F. Supp. 4 (W.D. Va. 1967)   Cited 4 times

    Error, if any exists, in the admission of these statements is harmless and therefore does not entitle plaintiff to a new trial. Plaintiff cites Vaught v. Jones, 205 Va. 719, 139 S.E.2d 810 (1965) and says that the case holds, among other things, that: [T]he improper manner in which the bus was stopped on the highway was merely a circumstance, or a remote cause, and that the negligence of the driver of the truck was the intervening and sole proximate cause of the collision in which Murray was killed.

  2. Garza v. Perez

    443 S.W.2d 855 (Tex. Civ. App. 1969)   Cited 10 times

    See also Sidders v. Mobile Softee, Inc., Ohio App., 184 N.E.2d 115 (1961); Baker-Evans Ice Cream Co. v. Tedesco, 114 Ohio 170, 150 N.E. 745, 44 A.L.R. 430 (1926); Maloney v. Howard Johnson Inc., 5 A.D.2d 1015, 174 N.Y.S.2d 257 (1958); Borden v. Daniel, 48 Tenn. App. 314, 346 S.W.2d 283 (1960), Mead v. Parker, 221 F. Supp. 601 (E.D.Tenn. 1963), and Vought v. Jones, 205 Va. 719, 139 S.E.2d 810 (1965); all of which can reasonably be compared in some respects and distinguished in others. 'Much argument has been devoted to the question of whether the ice cream wagon was stopped in violation of KRS 189.450 and, if so, whether such violation was a proximate cause of the accident.

  3. Nicosia v. Good Humor Corp.

    170 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 2 times

    " Mackey v. Spradlin, supra, 36, 37. In Vought v. Jones (1965), 205 Va. 719 ( 139 S.E.2d 810), under similar facts, the court reversed and remanded the case for submission to a jury. The court determined that it was a question of fact whether the driver of the ice-cream truck breached his duty of care to the child, a business invitee, and whether that breach was a proximate cause of the accident.

  4. Pannell v. United States

    Case No. 4:12-cv-00014 (W.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2013)

    Ultimately, Virginia law makes clear that: While the driver's duty and liability to adults and children are measured by different standards, see, e.g., Vought v. Jones, 205 Va. 719, 725, 139 S.E.2d 810, 815 (1965), the presence of children does not alleviate the plaintiff's burden to show that the children were in a discoverable location. --------

  5. Thomas v. Settle

    247 Va. 15 (Va. 1994)   Cited 16 times
    In Settle, a sixteen-year old driver's car stalled after it ran out of gas, and he was attempting to maneuver the car out of traffic when a truck rear-ended the vehicle.

    But those cases, as the defendants point out, all involved a minor who was not engaged in an adult activity. In Vought v. Jones, 205 Va. 719, 139 S.E.2d 810 (1965), a five-year-old child was injured while running across a street near an ice cream truck. In Wright v. Kelly, 203 Va. 135, 122 S.E.2d 670 (1961), an infant 17 months of age was killed when defendant backed his truck over the child in a driveway.

  6. Bennett v. Peeler

    189 S.E.2d 814 (S.C. 1972)

    nd Lowery, of Anderson, for Appellant, cites: As to testimony presentedon behalf of Plaintiff or Defendants from which a reasonableinference could be drawn that there were acts of the driverfor Defendant, that brought about the injuries to the Plaintiff'sintestate: Section 46-481 of the 1962 Code of Laws of South Carolina; 244 S.C. 237, 136 S.E.2d 306; 231 S.C. 578, 99 S.E.2d 402; 91 S.E.2d 421, 423; 208 S.C. 267, 37 S.E.2d 737; 223 S.C. 71, 74 S.E.2d 216; 243 S.C. 439, 443, 134 S.E.2d 399; 243 S.C. 458, 464, 134 S.E.2d 404. As to other reasonableinferences that could be drawn from the testimony in the caseother than that the Plaintiff's intestate was guilty of contributorynegligence or recklessness as a matter of law: 239 S.C. 620, 124 S.E.2d 321; 237 S.C. 1, 115 S.E.2d 667; 232 S.C. 26, 100 S.E.2d 534; 190 S.C. 181, 2 S.E.2d 686; 38 Am. Jur. Negligence, Section 64; 105 S.E.2d 399; 255 S.C. 585, 180 S.E.2d 336; 118 S.C. 358, 110 S.E. 405; 191 S.C. 74, 3 S.E.2d 684; 235 N.W. 630, 632; 139 S.E.2d 810, 815; 19 S.E.2d 876; 144 S.E.2d 574; G.S. Section 20-161 of the North Carolina Code of Laws; Section 46-481 of 1962 Code of Laws of South Carolina. Messrs. Love, Thornton, Arnold Thomason, of Greenville, for Respondent, cite: As to The Court's properlyholding that Plaintiff's intestate was contributorily negligentand/or reckless: 252 S.C. 546, 167 S.E.2d 575; 225 S.C. 460, 82 S.E.2d 685; Section 46-481 of the South Carolina Code (1962); 238 S.C. 191, 119 S.E.2d 729; 217 S.C. 435, 60 S.E.2d 889; 246 S.C. 346, 143 S.E.2d 614; 8 Am. Jur.2d Automobiles and Highway Traffic, Sec. 723 at page 276. As to the only reasonable inferenceto be drawn from the evidence being that the deathof Plaintiff's intestate resulted solely from his own negligentand reckless conduct: 241 S.C. 430, 128 S.E. 23, 776; 114 F. Supp. 150; 193 S.C. 309, 8 S.E.2d 321.

  7. Saunders and Rittenhouse v. Bulluck

    208 Va. 551 (Va. 1968)   Cited 18 times
    In Saunders and Rittenhouse v. Bullock, 208 Va. 551, 159 S.E.2d 820 (1968), a driver stopped on the highway and blocked a lane of travel in violation of Code Sec. 46.1-248.

    Those cases are not controlling in the present case. They were discussed and distinguished in Vought v. Jones, 205 Va. 719, 139 S.E.2d 810, in which an ice cream truck was stopped on the western side of the road headed south, with its left wheels on the hard surface. A child, after making a purchase, came around the back of the truck and was crossing to his home on the opposite side of the road when he was struck by a northbound car.

  8. Rowe v. Frick

    159 S.E.2d 47 (S.C. 1968)   Cited 19 times

    Messrs. J. Wesley Drawdy and William F. Able, of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to error on part of trialJudge in failing to strike the defense of contributory negligence: 159 S.C. 109, 156 S.E. 179; 30 A.L.R.2d 5; 227 S.C. 496, 88 S.E.2d 586; 2A Blashfield's Automobile Law and Practice, Sec. 1492; 203 S.C. 518, 28 S.E.2d 412; 227 S.C. 496, 88 S.E.2d 586; 155 Va. 40, 154 S.E. 547; 206 Va. 377, 143 S.E.2d 920, 202 Va. 40, 116 S.E.2d 73; 205 Va. 719, 139 S.E.2d 810; 76 S.C. 539, 57 S.E. 626, 121 Am. St. Rep. 957; 201 S.C. 308, 22 S.E.2d 892; 114 F. Supp. 150; 50 So.2d 337; 228 S.C. 45, 88 S.E.2d 780; (S.C.) 154 S.E.2d 922. J. Reese Daniel, Esq., of Columbia, for Respondent, cites: As to Appellant's exceptions not complying with Rule 4Section 6 of the Supreme Court Rules: 247 S.C. 129, 146 S.E.2d 164; 239 S.C. 395, 123 S.E.2d 521. As tothe Appellant waiving objection to the Court submitting theissue of contributory negligence and wilfulness to the juryby failing to object to the charge when given two opportunitiesto do so: (S.C.) 154 S.E.2d 428. As to thetrial Judge properly submitting the case to the jury: 206 Va. 377, 143 S.E.2d 920; (S.C.) 154 S.E.2d 922. As to the circumstances requiring the Court to submitthe question of the child's capacity to commit contributorynegligence to the jury: 201 S.C. 308, 22 S.E.2d 892. As to it being well settled that negligence or contributorynegligence must be determined by consideration of all therelevant sur

  9. Elliott v. Lewis

    150 S.E.2d 129 (Va. 1966)   Cited 3 times

    In that case and in others we held that whether the statute was violated and whether the violation contributed to the collision was an issue of fact for determination by the jury. Bonich v. Waite, 194 Va. 374, 73 S.E.2d 389; Birtcherd Dairy v. Edwards, Adm'r, 197 Va. 830, 91 S.E.2d 421; Baxley v. Fischer, 204 Va. 792, 134 S.E.2d 291; Vought v. Jones, 205 Va. 719, 139 S.E.2d 810; Saulsbury v. Williams, Adm'r, 205 Va. 727, 139 S.E.2d 816; Cowles v. Zahn, 206 Va. 743, 146 S.E.2d 200. When the collision occurred the Lewis car was stopped on its side of the road, with its right wheels on the shoulder, according to evidence that the jury could accept.

  10. Sullivan v. Sutherland

    143 S.E.2d 920 (Va. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    Finck v. Brock, 202 Va. 948, 951, 121 S.E.2d 373, 375. The duty of the driver of a motor vehicle when approaching children in or near a street or highway has been stated and restated by us in a long line of cases, beginning with Bail v. Witten, 155 Va. 40, 154 S.E. 547, and repeated in the recent cases of Vought v. Jones, 205 Va. 719, 725, 139 S.E.2d 810, 815; Saulsbury v. Williams, 205 Va. 727, 139 S.E.2d 816; and Alexander v. Moore, 205 Va. 870, 140 S.E.2d 645, 649. In Alexander v. Moore, supra, 205 Va. at p. 875, 140 S.E.2d at p. 648, we quoted from Gabbard v. Knight, 202 Va. 40, 46, 116 S.E.2d 73, 77, as follows: