Title: Jefferson v. Clark
Citation: 190 Kan. 520, 376 P.2d 923
Docket Number: 42,903
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: December 8, 1962

190 Kan. 520 (1962)
376 P.2d 923
C.F. JEFFERSON, Appellant,
v.
CHARLES CLARK, Appellee.
No. 42,903

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 8, 1962.
Donald R. Newkirk, of Wichita, argued the cause and Wayne Coulson, Paul R. Kitch, Dale M. Stucky, Robert J. Hill, Gerrit H. Wormhoudt, Philip Kassebaum, John E. Rees, Robert T. Cornwell, Willard B. Thompson and David W. Burton, all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellant. Hugo T. Wedell and Homer V. Gooing, of counsel.
Robert M. Bond, of El Dorado, argued the cause, and L.J. Bond, of El Dorado, was with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
JACKSON, J.:
This appeal concerns an automobile collision which occurred at about 12:15 p.m. on Sunday, September 21, 1958 when plaintiff-appellant was driving a 1955 Oldsmobile east on Central Avenue in Wichita and defendant-appellee was driving a 1958 Ford from the south into the intersection of Central Avenue and Rock Road.
Central Avenue is a through street and there were stop signs on Rock Road cautioning defendant to stop before entering the intersection. Defendant testified that he had stopped for the intersection, *521 when he observed a car coming at a rapid rate; that he stopped as quickly as he was able. His front end extended some two or more feet into the intersection.
Plaintiff estimated that he was driving between thirty-five and forty miles per hour. The speed limit on Central Avenue was thirty-five miles per hour. Plaintiff observed defendant as he approached the intersection; he apparently was going to stop for the stop sign; that plaintiff looked to the road to the north and saw no other car, glanced to the front again and saw defendant in the intersection or almost in it. Plaintiff tried to stop or turn to the left but had no time; that the collision occurred and plaintiff's car went forward to the north and finally turned over.
Plaintiff's petition asked for damages based on injuries to the person of the plaintiff and included nothing for injury to his car. He later endeavored to amend and include damages to his car but the trial court sustained defendant's objections to the amendment. This will be discussed later.
The case was tried to a jury which was instructed by the court and which brought in a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000 and answered the following special questions:
"Answer: In excess of 40 miles an hour.
"Answer: No.
"Answer: Yes.
"Answer: Yes.
Plaintiff moved to set aside the answer to question 4 on the ground that the negligence found was not as a matter of law the proximate cause of the accident and if this motion were not granted, plaintiff moved for a new trial.
The defendant moved for judgment on the special interrogatories notwithstanding the general verdict.
*522 When the post-trial motions of both parties came on for hearing, the trial court overruled both of plaintiff's motions and granted defendant judgment on the special findings notwithstanding the general verdict. Plaintiff promptly appealed to this court and urges that his motions should have been granted.
We note that the first specification of error by the plaintiff is as follows:
We do find that instruction No. 24 seems to be a "but for" instruction and does not state the rule of this jurisdiction as to contributory negligence. In Townsend, Administrator v. Jones, 183 Kan. 543, at page 554, 331 P.2d 890, it is said:
And see discussion in 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 106 at p. 656, where it is said in part as follows:
It must be remembered that the grave question here was whether plaintiff's speed of around forty miles per hour instead of thirty-five miles per hour was the proximate cause of the accident.
Instructions No. 24 and No. 25 read as follows:
"Instruction No. 24.
"Instruction No. 25.
The two instructions cover much the same ground and actually are somewhat inconsistent. This inconsistency goes to the matter of defining proximate cause and under what circumstances contributory negligence is the proximate cause. We believe that instruction No. 24 is inaccurate and contrary to instruction No. 25 which seems to be the rule applied in this state.
Plaintiff also finds fault with instruction No. 14 upon the question of this matter of contributory negligence and proximate causation. Instruction No. 14 reads as follows:
"Instruction No. 14.
Here again we find no warning that such excessive speed must be the proximate cause of the accident, nor really any warning that a party would have the burden of proving the matter of excessive speed unless it were admitted.
In view of the fault found with instruction No. 24, we find further reason for apprehension as to instruction No. 14. The instruction should be corrected as suggested.
The jury in this case cannot be thought to have understood the question of proximate cause for they found first that plaintiff was *524 contributorially negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, and then gave plaintiff a judgment for $5,000.
Plaintiff argues strongly that the trial court committed error in not allowing him to amend his petition to add the cost for the damages to his automobile. We feel that the court erred in that decision. The case of Foster v. Humburg, 180 Kan. 64, 299 P.2d 46, appears to be almost a "bay horse" case on the point. There is no change of cause of action in the profered amendment (Davison v. Eby Construction Co., 169 Kan. 256, 218 P.2d 219; Fiscus v. Kansas City Public Ser. Co., 153 Kan. 493, 112 P.2d 83). As said in the Foster case, supra, the amendment relates back to the filing of the original petition.
We think that the question of proximate cause was a jury question, and that the instructions upon the matter were in error. We believe the case should be reversed with directions to grant a new trial. Other questions raised need not be answered since the new trial should resolve all other matters.