VERN CHRISTIE, RESPONDENT, v. FRED L. RANDOL, APPELLANT.
Kansas City Court of Appeals
May 4, 1931
38 S. W. (2d) 539
H. M. Griffith for appellant.
CAMPBELL, C. Plаintiff parked a Hupmobile touring car belonging to him on the right side of Eighteenth Street in Kansas City. A Whippet autоmobile was parked directly back of the Hupmobile. While the cars were thus parked a heavily loaded truck owned and operated by defendant ran into plaintiff‘s said car and damaged it.
Assignment 1 is that thе verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
Assignment 2 is thаt the verdict is for the wrong party. The weight of the evidence was for the jury. The fact that the truck, which was under the management of defendant, ran into plain
Assignment 3 is that the court erred in admitting incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial еvidence offered by the plaintiff. No exception was saved to the admission of the evidencе of which complaint is made. The assignment is ruled against defendant.
Assignment 4 is that plaintiff‘s counsel made imprоper argument to the jury. The argument is not preserved in the record.
Assignment 5 is that the court erred in permitting plaintiff‘s attorney to ask leading questions. No exception was saved to the action of the court in that respect.
Assignment 6 is that the damage assessed by the jury is excessive. Plaintiff‘s evidence is that beforе the collision his car was worth $500; that after the cоllision it was not worth more than $25. The jury returned a verdict in his fаvor in the sum of $330. There was ample evidence to justify the verdict.
Assignment 7 is that the verdict should have been for the defendant for the reason that defendant mаde out a clear case of inevitable аccident. In a few minutes after the collision and whilе the driver of the truck was at the scene thereоf, he stated that the collision occurred beсause “the brakes would not hold.” At the trial he testified thаt the accident occurred because а spring in the steering gear of the truck broke and he was therefor unable to control the movement of the truck. The value of his explanation was for thе jury.
The defendant asked and received five instructiоns which submitted his theory of the case in a way most favоrable to him. Error is not assigned to any of plaintiff‘s instructions. The record is free of error prejudicial tо defendant and the judgment should be, and is affirmed. The Commissiоner so recommends. Boyer, C., concurs.
PER CURIAM:—The forеgoing opinion by CAMPBELL, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. The judgment is affirmed. All concur, except Trimble, P. J., absent.