Court Opinion

ID: 9560145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:43:56.586897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:12.810781
License: Public Domain

Miller, J.,
dissenting.
It is conceded that decedent Burchett, an occupant of the eastbound car driven by Tommie Daniel, was not guilty of contributory negligence.
The testimony of H. R. Fink was that Ernest Thompson was driving his truck at a high rate of speed as he left the bridge and approached the oncoming eastbound car. Other evidence shows that the collision happened on the south or left half of the highway as the truck proceeded westwardly, and that the vehicles came to rest against the bank on the south side of the road. The position and condition of the vehicles justify the conclusion that they collided while the truck was traveling at considerable speed.
The fact that the collision happened on the south or left side of the road as the truck traveled westwardly, raises a prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the truck driver. Interstate Veneer Co., Inc., et al. v. Edwards, Adm’r, etc., 191 Va. 107, 60 S. E. (2d) 4. The position and condition of the vehicles after the collision add evidential weight to the prima facie presumption.
Thompson gave the following explanation of what he did when he saw the oncoming automobile cross to his side of the road and how the accident happened:
“A. When I goes around this turn, I sees this car coming.
“Q. About how far was it from you?
“A. I guess maybe 150 feet, near that distance.
“Q. When you first saw it?
“A. And when I first saw it, and he come up the road, he commenced running kinda in this shape, coming across that white line.

*******

“Q. Tell what the car did.
“A. And it come on over here, when I saw him coming, he was *324bearing to my side some and I put on my brakes and slowed down, didn’t put on no brakes tight. I slowed down enough to let him get over there on my side on the dirt, off the hard-top, and when he done that, I just kinda laid over next to the white line, I released my brakes then I aimed to go on by him and he just give that thing a wring and come heading back across my lane, onto his lane where he started. My left front wheel hit his car near the left front door.
“Q. What did you do when you saw him cutting back to his side?
“A. I kinda wrung my truck then to try to get back to my side, but I was already too slow or he was too fast, but my left front wheel hit his car near left front door.
“Q. Where did your truck stop?
“A. The best I remember it was laying over the left side of the road, laying on right side.”
The explanation given by Thompson as to why and how he and the driver of the automobile undertook to swap sides of the highway and then swap back again while continuing to approach each other at considerable speed is unconvincing and not such as to require its acceptance by the jury. His version is contradicted by the physical facts and raises a jury question as to whether or not the automobile was ever driven to his side of the road. It does not necessarily rebut the prima facie presumption of his negligence which arose because of his crossing the center line. But if it be true, as stated by Thompson, that Daniel drove near to the north shoulder of the road, yet the jury had the right to believe that when Thompson saw the car come over on his side of the road toward the north shoulder, he should have stopped or more materially reduced the speed of his truck before undertaking to pass on the left. It is to be remembered that he said he “* * * didn’t put on no brakes tight.”
Whether or not Thompson’s explanation is factually true, and if so, then whether or not he should, under the circumstances, have driven to the left side of the road instead of trying to stop or more materially slow down his truck, were questions for the jury to decide and not for the court.
When all of the facts and circumstances are considered, whether or not Thompson was guilty of negligence that efficiently contributed to the collision was an issue to be decided by the jury.
Buchanan, J., joins in this dissent,