Opinion ID: 1096128
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: were plaintiffs entitled to a peremptory instruction?

Text: This case presents a very close question on whether or not Patsy was negligent as a matter of law in never seeing Treshika until after the accident, and the jury should have been so instructed. The driver of a car is charged with the duty of keeping a proper lookout and being on alert for vehicles, objects and persons ahead in the highway. Fowler Butane Gas Co. v. Varner, 244 Miss. 130, 141 So.2d 226 (1962); Belk v. Rosamond, 213 Miss. 633, 57 So.2d 461 (1952). The driver is charged with the absolute duty of seeing what he should have seen. Tippit v. Hunter, 205 So.2d 267 (Miss. 1967); Campbell v. Schmidt, 195 So.2d 87 (Miss. 1967); Layton v. Cook, 248 Miss. 690, 160 So.2d 685 (1964). He is also required to have his car under proper control, to be on the alert on the highway, and avoid striking plain objects. Barkley v. Miller Transporters, Inc., 450 So.2d 416 (Miss. 1984); Shideler v. Taylor, 292 So.2d 155 (Miss. 1974). This accident occurred on a clear day, and on a straight street. In view of the evidence that the front of the car did not strike the child, however, and that she was struck by the side of the vehicle, the circumstances of this accident are not quite certain enough to warrant a directed verdict on liability, at least on the record before us. Because the jury was erroneously instructed, and the case is being reversed on this ground, we do not address the question of whether the verdict of the jury is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.