(Download) "Hightower v. Alley" by Supreme Court of Montana * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Hightower v. Alley
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 20, 1957
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
AUTOMOBILES ? NEGLIGENCE ? LAST CLEAR CHANCE ? TRIAL ? EVIDENCE. 1. Evidence ? Expert testimony ? No error in exclusion. In action for wrongful death of plaintiffs 76 year old decedent, who was killed when he collided with defendants automobile while attempting to walk across highway, trial court did not err in excluding expert testimony offered by plaintiff as to walking and running speed of average person, in view of fact that conclusions sought from witness were matters within range of ordinary training and common observation and on which jurors were capable of forming - Page 350 their own opinion or inference, and in view of fact it was questionable whether there was any average walking or running speed of 76 year old men. 2. Evidence ? No error in rejecting evidence of experiments. Trial court did not err in rejecting evidence of experiments made by an athletic director clocking speed of an individual as to time required to walk and to run across highway at point of accident, in view of fact such evidence was inadmissible because conditions existing were not shown to be substantially identical, and speed of decedent in crossing road was not known. 3. Appeal and Error ? Instruction as to duty not prejudicial. Instruction on decedents duty to make reasonable observations to learn traffic conditions confronting him for his own safety before and while crossing highway and to exercise ordinary care to avoid an accident, although, unnecessarily lengthy, was not prejudicial, in view of fact it was applicable to the facts and correctly stated the law. 4. Automobiles ? Ordinary care by pedestrian. Although a pedestrian and a motorist have equal rights in the use of a public highway, a pedestrian must use ordinary care for his own safety. 5. Trial ? Instructions must be construed together. In determining propriety of instructions, all instructions given must be considered together. 6. Trial ? Instructions not conflicting. Instruction that if jury found negligence of both parties proximately caused death of the decedent verdict must be for defendant, did not conflict with instruction on contributory negligence, and was not erroneously given, in view of fact that when considered together the two instructions made it clear that before contributory negligence of decedent would bar recovery such negligence must have contributed not remotely to his injury and death but immediately as a proximate cause thereof, and as so construed, such instructions correctly stated applicable rule of law. 7. Negligence ? Last Clear Chance. In order to support an instruction on doctrine of last clear chance in a negligence action, requisite facts must be alleged in the complaint. 8. Automobiles ? No error in not giving instruction on last clear chance. Where decedent did not come into a position of peril any appreciable length of time before injury, and had he stood still, defendant would have avoided striking him, and under the evidence, defendant had no reasonable opportunity to avoid striking decedent, under such circumstances, trial court did not err in not giving a proposed instruction on last clear chance.
 "Hightower v. Alley" by Supreme Court of Montana * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}