Opinion ID: 1735859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the lower court erred in denying appellant's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability.

Text: The appellant contends, as a matter of law, the appellees were guilty of negligence since Oakley did not see appellant in the highway in time to avoid striking him. Mississippi Code Annotated § 63-3-1105 (1972) provides that every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway. Further, Mississippi Code Annotated § 63-3-1112 (1972) provides that notwithstanding any other provision of the chapter, or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or any person propelling a human-powered vehicle and shall give an audible signal when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person. In Layton v. Cook, 248 Miss. 690, 160 So.2d 685 (1964), the Court said: In the absence of a statute to the contrary, a pedestrian has the right to use and travel upon any portion of a public highway at any time of the day or night, and his rights and the rights of one operating a vehicle thereupon are mutual, reciprocal, and equal. The operator of a motor vehicle owes to pedestrians walking along the highway the duty to exercise reasonable or ordinary care to avoid injuring them. Hence a motorist is guilty of negligence where he strikes a pedestrian walking along the highway, where in the exercise of reasonable care he should have but did not see him and could have avoided the accident. 7 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 400. 248 Miss. at 696-97, 160 So.2d at 687. In Smith v. Walton, 271 So.2d 409 (Miss. 1973), which involved a similar factual situation to the case at bar, the Court held that the trial court was correct in refusing a directed verdict for pedestrian/plaintiff, stating that ... `All questions of negligence and contributory negligence' are for the jury to decide upon proper instructions of the court as to the applicable principles of law involved. 271 So.2d at 409, quoting Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-7-17 (1972). We are of the opinion that, under the facts of this case, it was for the jury to decide whether or not the appellees were guilty of negligence which proximately caused or contributed to the accident and the injuries sustained by appellant. This assignment of error is without merit.