Title: Alvarez v. Paulus
Citation: 333 P.2d 633, 8 Utah 2d 283
Docket Number: 8895
State: Utah
Issuer: Utah Supreme Court
Date: January 5, 1959

8 Utah 2d 283 (1959) 333 P.2d 633 JULIA T. ALVAREZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. PAUL PAULUS AND STOVER BEDDING AND MANUFACTURING CO., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. No. 8895. Supreme Court of Utah. January 5, 1959. W.D. Beatie, Salt Lake City, for appellant. Emmett L. Brown, Salt Lake City, for respondents. WORTHEN, Justice. Appeal from a verdict in favor of defendant in an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's daughter when struck by defendant's truck. The accident which resulted in the death of the child occurred in Emeril Avenue, a private right of way 20 feet wide and 330 feet long which runs easterly and westerly. Defendant Paul Paulus was operating a truck belonging to his employer, the defendant corporation. Paulus entered the avenue from the east and proceeded westward about 250 feet and turned his truck into a driveway on the north side. Paulus had intended backing out onto the avenue and backing his truck to the Stover warehouse at the west end of the avenue for loading. Because of the congested condition of the west end of the avenue Paulus backed his truck eastward along the avenue and by a series of back and go movements stopped his truck facing east. He then proceeded to back his truck westerly until the accident occurred. The plaintiff complained of the defendant's negligent operation of the truck and charged that said negligence consisted of the following: (a) defendant Paulus backed his truck without keeping a proper lookout, (b) he backed his truck onto the 22 month old daughter of plaintiff without giving any warning or signal, and (c) he failed to yield the right of way. The defendants contend that they were not negligent but that plaintiff was guilty of negligence in that she allowed a child only 22 months old to play in the street without supervision. The only witnesses called were called by appellant. The case was submitted to the jury and it found the issues in favor of defendants and against the plaintiff. Appellant assigns errors as follows: (1) In refusing to submit the theory of appellant concerning failure of respondent to yield right of way as negligence, (2) In submitting question of accident as a defense to the jury, and (3) In submitting the question of contributory negligence of appellant to the jury. As to the first assignment it should be observed that one of the disputed issues of fact reserved in the pretrial order was this: "Was Paul Paulus negligent as claimed by the plaintiff?" The trial court we think fully and correctly instructed the jury upon the subject and our attention has not been called to any reason or law suggesting that the instructions were not proper. In Instruction No. 5 the court said: In Instruction No. 7 the court said: We find no merit to the foregoing assignment. Plaintiff had the burden of proving the negligence of Paul Paulus and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The record fails to disclose wherein Paulus was negligent. Testimony of plaintiff's witnesses was to the effect that defendant Paulus stopped his truck and hollered at the children, and that he stopped his truck three times and chased the children away. Nor may plaintiff complain of the submitting of the question of accident as a defense to the jury. Plaintiff requested the court to give the following instruction as plaintiff's request No. 4: The court stated in its pretrial order: The trial court gave Instruction No. 6 of which plaintiff complains: If there is any criticism that may be made of the said instruction plaintiff may not complain after having invited the court to give his requested Instruction No. 4. Nor do we find that error was committed in submitting the question of contributory negligence of appellant to the jury. Not only are we of the opinion that the court properly submitted that question to the jury but we are of the view that appellant may not take advantage of her request. Appellant submitted her request No. 11 as follows: Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondents. McDONOUGH, C.J., and CROCKETT, WADE and HENRIOD, JJ., concur.