Case Title: McPherson v. Leichhardt

Citation: 181 Kan. 330, 310 P.2d 941

Docket Number: 40,503

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1957-05-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
181 Kan. 330 (1957)
310 P.2d 941
ROBERT C. McPHERSON, Appellant,
v.
LYNN LEICHHARDT, Director, ALLEN WHITTAKER, Secretary, and R.L. WHITESELL, Treasurer, as Trustees of the Clearwater, Kansas, School District, and CALVIN EUGENE CHANDLER, Appellees.
No. 40,503

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 11, 1957.
Pat Warnick, Allan B. Phares, William C. Norton and H.E. Pat Healy, all of Wichita, were on the briefs for the appellant.
Robert C. Foulston, of Wichita, argued the cause and George B. Powers, Carl T. Smith, John F. Eberhardt, Samuel E. Bartlett, Stuart R. Carter, Malcolm Miller, Robert N. Partridge, Robert M. Siefkin, Richard C. Harris and Gerald Sawatzky, all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HALL, J.:
This is an appeal from an order sustaining demurrers to the evidence against the plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.
This negligence action arose out of a collision between plaintiff's car and a school bus at a country intersection in which the plaintiff prayed for recovery of damages and the defendant cross petitioned against the plaintiff for damages.
The plaintiff was employed at an aircraft plant in Wichita and had lived in the vicinity for a number of years. This accident occurred while driving his automobile from the plant to his home. From his place of work, the plaintiff followed a blacktop highway south for two miles until the highway turned west. Plaintiff's home was south so he did not turn west on the blacktop highway but went straight south on a gravel road known as Gilda Street. From this point to the intersection of 55th Street, another gravel road where the accident occurred, was a distance of about one-third of a city block more or less. Along the north side of 55th Street, *331 going east and west, and east of Gilda Street was a shelterbelt. This shelterbelt was located 10 feet north of the north line of 55th Street and ended about 15 to 20 feet east of Gilda Street. On the day of the accident, the weather was clear and dry. There were no traffic signs of any kind at the intersection. The accident occurred as the plaintiff crossed the intersection.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, defendants demurred to plaintiff's evidence and the court sustained the demurrers.
Plaintiff specifies as error the sustaining of the demurrers to his evidence and the ruling that the testimony of the plaintiff showed him guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The only evidence in the case was the plaintiff's testimony. On direct examination he testified:
..............
..............
..............
..............
On re-direct examination, the plaintiff testified:
..............
In presenting this appeal, appellant states:
Plaintiff relies upon this court's decisions in Lawrence v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 167 Kan. 45, 204 P.2d 752; Thompson v. Barnette, 170 Kan. 384, 227 P.2d 120; Fry v. Cadle, 171 Kan. 14, 229 P.2d 724; Cain v. Steely, 173 Kan. 866, 252 P.2d 909. These were the cases distinguished by the court in Green v. Higbee, 176 Kan. 596, 272 P.2d 1084.
Defendants contend the district court was correct in following Green v. Higbee, supra.
In Green v. Higbee, supra, the plaintiff appealed from an order sustaining a demurrer to his evidence in an action involving a collision in a rural intersection. The court examined the plaintiff's evidence and held that the demurrer was properly sustained.
Green v. Higbee, supra, is recognized as a leading automobile negligence case in this jurisdiction and has been followed with approval in more recent cases (Koch v. Suttle, 180 Kan. 603, 306 P.2d 123).
The court wrote the following syllabus which is particularly applicable to accidents occurring at blind intersections of rural roads.
After a thorough review of this case we agree with the district court that the law of Green v. Higbee, supra, should be controlling. We are unable to make any material distinction of fact between the two cases.
In reviewing the plaintiff's evidence, we have followed the elementary rule that on demurrer the plaintiff is entitled to have his evidence considered in the light most favorable to him. On the other hand, we have also adhered to an equally well established rule that a party is bound by his own plain unequivocal admissions. This rule is especially applicable where the plaintiff's case stands solely on his own testimony and no physical or other facts are in dispute. Here we need not speculate concerning plaintiff's evidence. By his own admission, he entered a blind rural country intersection at about 40 miles an hour and did not see what was plainly to be seen. In the instant case all of the essential facts of contributory negligence as a matter of law are established by plaintiff's admissions. Following Green v. Higbee, supra, the demurrer was properly sustained.
The judgment is affirmed.