Case Title: Hill v. Hill

Citation: 168 Kan. 639, 215 P.2d 159

Docket Number: 37,788

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1950-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
168 Kan. 639 (1950)
215 P.2d 159
VIRGIL HILL, Appellee,
v.
MERRILL HILL, Appellant.
No. 37,788

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed February 28, 1950.
Archie T. MacDonald, and Russ B. Anderson, both of McPherson, were on the briefs for the appellant.
J.R. Rhoades, and George R. Lehmberg, both of McPherson, were on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
ARN, J.:
Plaintiff brought this action to recover for personal injuries and property damage arising out of a rear-end collision between two trucks, one driven by plaintiff and the other by defendant. Defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's petition was overruled and defendant appeals, contending that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in that it reveals upon its face that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
The petition alleges that plaintiff and defendant are brothers; that they were engaged in hauling hay between two points, and at the time of the collision were traveling the usual route for another load. The petition continues:
Appellant also complains of a trial court order overruling his motion to strike certain allegations of the petition concerning the practices of these parties in buying and hauling hay. Those allegations do not pertain to the allegations challenged by the demurrer. Neither do they affect any substantial right which would in any *641 way determine this action, and that ruling was therefore not appealable. (Estes v. Tobin Construction Co., 159 Kan. 322, 153 P.2d 939.)
The allegations of the petition that defendant (appellant) suddenly applied his brakes and suddenly stopped his truck in the center of the main traveled portion of the road, without giving any warning signal, and knowing that plaintiff's truck was following directly behind him, sufficiently alleges negligence on the part of defendant  and appellant does not contend otherwise. It is appellant's contention that paragraph 5 of the petition alleging that as plaintiff crossed the intersection following defendant's eastbound truck he was observing another car which was waiting to cross the intersection on a north-south road, constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law. Appellant attempts to invoke the rule that a driver of a motor vehicle must so operate his vehicle that he can safely stop within the distance that he can clearly see any other vehicular traffic in the roadway ahead of him. That is a well established rule, but it does not apply to a situation where a sudden emergency arises, as by the sudden application of brakes and sudden stop without warning of another vehicle just ahead. (Towell v. Staley, 161 Kan. 127, 166 P.2d 699; Drennan v. Penn. Casualty Co., 162 Kan. 286, 176 P.2d 522; and Henderson v. National Mutual Cas. Co., 164 Kan. 109, 187 P.2d 508.)
Construing the allegations of the petition liberally in favor of the pleader, as we must in such a case, we cannot say as a matter of law that the plaintiff's petition shows upon its face that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in the manner in which he kept a lookout for other traffic on the north-south road. The demurrer to the petition was properly overruled and the judgment is affirmed.