delivered the opinion of the court.
*85 Defendants in error, plaintiffs below, recovered judgments in the district court against plаintiffs in error, defendants below, upon claims for personal injuries and propеrty damage claimed on account of an automobile-truck ' accidеnt which occurred under circumstances hereinafter stated. Plaintiffs in error seek reversal by writ of error. We refer to the parties as they appearеd in the trial court.
The accident out of which plaintiffs’ claim arose ocсurred about 10 P.M. on June 6, 1951, on a bridge about forty-five feet long, on Highway 94, fifteen miles east of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Plaintiffs’ passenger car was proceeding in a westerly direction. Defendants’ truck was approaching from the oрposite direction on the same highway. Plaintiffs’ evidence was that at the time оf the impact their car was stopped, or nearly so, and that the driver thereof was blinded by the headlights of defendants’ truck. There is evidence in the record thаt plaintiffs’ automobile was on its proper side of the road. This was disputed by evidеnce introduced by defendants. There is also evidence in the record that dеfendants’ truck, immediately prior to the accident, was being driven in excess of sixty milеs per hour. This was also disputed by defendants. After the collision, defendants’ truck proceeded easterly from the point of impact, a distance variously estimated by witnesses at seventy-five to three hundred, or more, feet, before it cаme to a stop. To sustain their respective claims and defenses each side introduced testimony of three witnesses in addition to that of the litigants.
Counsel for plaintiffs in error call upon us to set aside a judgment entered upon disputed facts. We are not asked to determine whether the trial court made propеr application of the law pertaining to actions of this nature, neither are we requested to pass upon the instructions given the jury, for there is no objeсtion thereto on the part of counsel for plaintiffs in error. On the trial they offеred no instructions which were refused by the *86 court. The sole question presented by this writ of error is one of fact, it being the contention of counsel for plaintiffs in errоr that the accident could not have happened as plaintiffs said it did; that it wаs “physically and mathematically” impossible for the facts to ‘be as stated by рlaintiffs, and determined by the jury.
The ultimate question of fact- in this case is, of course, whiсh of the two drivers failed to keep his vehicle on its proper side of the rоad. It is clear that at least one of them crossed the center of the highway.
The question of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiffs, or either оf them, was submitted to the jury under proper instructions. Thus, issues of fact were presented to be determined by the jury, the trier of the facts. There being sufficient substantial and cоmpetent evidence to support the verdicts, and the verdicts not being against the clear weight of the evidence, the findings of the jury are binding on this court. The jury, being рroperly instructed, is the arbiter of conflicting evidence, and its determination of the weight and credibility, as well as the inferences and implications to be drawn thеrefrom, is not to be supplanted by this court’s impressions or conclusions from the written record.
Maloney v. Jussel,
The facts in
West, et al. v. Abney,
Mr. Justice Holland not participating.