[577] A collision, of two automobiles gave rise to this action. Edw.ard G. Jones was killed in the collision; and. Kathleen L. Wilson, administratrix of his estate sued Albert Toliv.er for. damages. Defendant' answered and counterclaimed. The. jury *645 found against plaintiff and for defendant, awarding defendant $16,-000 damages. Judgment followed. Plaintiff contends error was committed in not directing a verdict for plaintiff on defendant’s counterclaim, in the exclusion of certain testimony, in giving and refusing certain instructions, and in,the argument of defendant’s counsel. Each litigant contends the other was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and plaintiff contends defendant did not- make a submissible humanitarian case. These are close factual issues calling for a detailed statement of the facts.
Edward G. Jones, with his wife, Lenora, to his right on the front seat, and his sister, Mrs. Bertha Garrett, on the right side of'the rear seat, left Kirksville, Missouri, their home, in Jones’ 5-passenger Chew rolet coupe about 4:15 a.m. July 20, 1952, for Galesburg,-Illinois'. Their route was eastwardly over Missouri highways 6 and 16 to Cantonj Missouri.
Albert Toliver,-of Ewing, Missouri, was proceeding-in his Hudson sedan westwardly over Mo. 6 to La Belle, Missouri, to pick up his son-in-law for a trip to Illinois.
For convenience we refer to Edward G. Jones as plaintiff and-to Albert Toliver as defendant.
The two automobiles collided about 5:10 a.m. at the east- end of the junction (stated by one litigant to be a lopsided wye) of Highways Mo. 6 and Mo. 16, about one-half mile east of Lewistown, ’ Missouri. Each was in its proper lane' of -travel: the Chevrolet,' for eastbound traffic on Mo. 16; the Hudson, for westbound traffic on Mo. 6. The morning was clear and sunny. The blacktopped highways, each 24 feet wide, were dry. No obstructions to the view or appreciable 'grades are involved.
Plaintiff and his wife- were ' instantly killed. Mrs. .Garrett arid defendant, who was knocked unconscious, werе seriously injured. They were the only eyewitnesses to the impact of the automobiles.
Highway Mo. 6 extends westwardly from.U. S. 61 near Taylor, Missouri, through Ewing, Lewistown, La Belle and Kirksville to a point on U. S. 36 near St. Joseph, Missouri. Highway Mo. 16 is an east-west road, 18 miles in length, between the junction, of Mo. 6 and 16 tp U. S. 61 at Canton, about 14 miles north..of Taylor, and passes through Monticello. What is.now Mo, 16 was originally part of Mo. 6 (S.ee Centennial Road law, 1st Ex. Sess. 1921, p. 155, § 29, Lewis county; § 227.020, statutory references are to RSMo 1949 and YAMS). In the nineteen thirties a new highway was constructed from near Taylor through Ewing to connect at the junction involved with said,east-wеst road across Lewis. county, and the number, of the ¡ old highway, from the junction to Canton was changed.to Mo. 16 and the new high-, way was designated a part of Mo. 6. The old highway (now. Mo. 6 and Mo. 16) is a due east-west road in the vicinity of the junction. High *646 way Mo. 6 runs slightly southeast-northwest at the junction, forming an acute angle with Mo. 6 at the east end of the junction.
Each highway had its center line marked by a dashed line, painted white. The painted center line on Mo. 6 followed the curve of Mo. 6 through the junction; whereas the painted center line of Mo. 16 ended at the north edge of the westbound traffic lane (if extended) of Mо. 6. Consequently, a westbound automobile on Mo. 6 would not pass over the painted center line of Mo. 16 at the junction; but an automobile from the west on Mo. 6 desiring to proceed eastwardly over Mo. 16 would pass over the painted center line of Mo. 6 at the junction. The general layout for painting the center lines is under the maintenance department of the State Highway Commission, comes [578] through to the district level,-and-the district maintenance department does the actual painting.
A highway sign for eastbound traffic just south of the pavement showing, with arrows, Junction Mo. 16 straight ahead, Mo. 6 to thе right, was 300 or more feet west of the west end of the curve for Mo. 6 at the junction; and immediately opposite said west end of the curve was another sign showing Mo. 6 to the right and Mo. 16 straight ahead. There was no “stop” sign for either plaintiff or defendant. On the north side of Mo. 16 for westbound traffic, not here involved, were two highway signs; one, approximately 60 feet east of said west end of the curve, showed Mo. 6 westbound, and the other, about 230 feet farther east, was a stop sign. In the neighborhood of 472 feet east of said west end of the curve and 300 feet east of the easternmost meeting point of the highwаys was a crossover for the interchange of traffic between the two highways.
Defendant testified that he first saw the Chevrolet when-the two automobiles were about 3Q0 feet apart, each being about 150 feet from the .point of impact, and that each automobile was traveling about 50 miles an hour. Plaintiff’s evidence was corroborative. Mrs. Garrett, the sole, survivor in the Chevrolet and plaintiff’s witness, stated she could not give the speed, but that plaintiff had traveled at about the same speed from Kirksville to' the point of collision, 45 or 50 miles, in about 50 minutes, and she noticed no appreciаble difference, in the speed of the Chevrolet after she saw defendant’s Hudson. (Consult State v. Enochs,
Mrs. Garrett further testified that the Chevrolet traveled in the eastbound lane of Mo. 16 and was never on the wrong side of Mo. 16; thát it,was, east of the house nearest the junction when she.first saw defendant’s Hudson approaching but she could not say where the Chevrolet was with reference to the junction (the house is approximately 170 feet west of the west end of the curve and approximately 306 feet west of the point of impact); that the Hudson was “weaving” *647 when she looked up; that it swerved to the left, crossed the center line .on the curve of Mo. 6, then back into its lane, and appeared to' come into the Chevrolet head on; that a “ screeching sound ’ ’ of the Hudson’s tires accompanied its weaving, and that plaintiff’s last words were: ‘ ‘ I wonder what that guy---, ” and that his wife screamed just before the collision.
Defendant was familiar with the junction. He testified that hé was at all times in his proper lane of travel around the curve and his automobile did not swerve or weave across the center line' of- Mo. 6; that he could have seen the Chevrolet some distance fárther back than 150 feet; that “when I first saw it he was well to his right in-his lane of traffic headed east and then all at once, without any signal' or anything, he started to cross the white line into my lane of traffic ’ ’; and that what he is saying is that the Chevrolet crossed the painted center line of Mo. 6. Defendant also testified that when ’the automobiles were 300 feet apart he realized the Chevrolet would either go around'the curve on Mo. 6 or straight ahead due east on Mo. 16; that he, defendant, continued to follow around the curve on Mo. 6 for 100 feet; that when the automobiles were about 100 feet apart and each 50 feet from the pоint of impact he first put on his brakes and started'to swerve his Hudson; and that he traveled about 100 feet after he saw the Chevrolet before he did anything.
Witnesses Sam Gnuse, who arrived at the scene at 5:25' a.m., before anyone had been removed from either automobile, a first arrival, and Patrolman L. P. Forrest described where the debris was on the highway et cetera. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 8 is a plat, drawn to scale, of the junction and Mo. 6 and 16 in the immediate vicinity; and it was agreed that it fairly represented the intersection. Witness Gnuse drew a circle on said Exhibit No. 8 indicating where the debris was. Defendant stated the circlе [579] represented the approximate point of impact.
Patrolman Forrest made measurements of the seenei He testified: The Hudson bounced back 6 feet and the Chevrolet bounced back 26 feet from the point of impact. It measured 136 feet from the west end of the curve to the point of impact and 35 or 36 feet from the point of impact to where the south edge of the pavement on .Mo. 16 meets the northeast edge of the curved pavement on Mo. -6 (the west point of the triangular plot of ground between Mo. 6 and 16). The point' of impact was 6 feet south of аnd opposite the end of the white painted center line of Mo. 16 and 10 feet north of the center line of Mo. 6 at that point, making the point of impact 22 feet north of the south edge of the pavement on Mo. 6. (This corresponds with the circle placed on Exhibit No. 8 by witness Gnuse.) There was a 53-foot straight east-west skid mark of one’tire of the Chevrolet in.the south-lane for Mo. 16 to the point of impact and the skid marks of the Hudson were 50 feet in length.
*648 From photographs offered in evidence: The damage to the Chevrolet was greatest at its; right front or southeast corner as it traveled east, including the headlight and front fender. The damage to the Hudson was.more on its front, mostly to the right front, with the right front ■fender pushed back, up and in and the left front fender showing no material damage. One witness testified the left front comer of the Hudson:was-damaged (as stated in defendant’s brief) but he later corrected this,, stating he meant the right front corner.
Defendant’s theory was that the cars were traveling on the same highway; that.the painted curved center line of Mo. 6 divided their lanes for travel, and that § 304.020(3) applied.
Plaintiff contends, the collision was within the intersection of Mo. :6 and 16 and § § 301.010(6) and 304.020(12) apply.
The court adoрted defendant’s theory. Briefly, defendant submitted primary negligence -on the part .of- plaintiff in driving at an excessive speed- (50 miles an hour), when plaintiff knew or should have known that.in leaving Mo. 6 and proceeding eastwardly on Mo. 16 he would ■be required.to pass over the center line of Mo. 6; and primary negligence in plaintiff operating his automobile so as to cross the center line of Mo. 6 from.the south to the north side thereof when defendant was in.such close proximity that there was great danger of a collision; and negligence under the humanitarian doctrine in plaintiff failing to tui;n his.car to the right and remain south of the center line of Mo. 6. Plaintiff-’s instructions'sought a recovery on defendant’s negligence in driving, at an excessive, speed and under the humanitarian doctrine in failing.to slacken speed and swerve. ■ - '
; Section.'304.020 (3) provides that operators of automobiles meeting-an ..approaching opposing automobile on the same highway “shall turn, to; the right of the center of the highway so as to pass without interference. ’ ’
“An intersecting highway” is defined in § 301.010(6) as “any .highway which--joins another, whether or not it crosses the same.” The :a.rea of an intersection has been considered to embrаce the paved space- common--to both highways. Brumback v. Simpson, Mo.,
The question whether the highways were intersecting highways was >for - the court under the undisputed- facts. The area common to Mo. 6 and Mo-. 16 under the instant facts embraced at least the paved area bounded by-a prolongation of the northeast curved edge of the pavement of Mo.-6-across Mo. 16, the west end of the curve of Mo. 6, and the-north and south edges of the pavement of Mo. 16 within said east and west boundaries.- Plaintiff entered upon Highway Mo. 16 when he ■passed-the west end of the curve of Mo. 6. In the circumstаnces the rights of the motorists at and within the intersection is not to be ruled- *649 by the fact that the district maintenance department- [580] of the State Highway Commission did not paint the center line on Mo.-16 to connect with the center line painted around the curve, of -Mb. 6, but stopped the center line of Mo. 16 at the imaginary prolongation óf the northeast edge of the-pavement of-Mo. 6 as it curved across Mo. 16. The case involves the operation of motor vehicles across a highway intersection; and the rights of the motorists are governed by- statutory provisions enacted by the Genéral Assembly regulating'traffic-at highway intersections. : ■ ’ •" '
Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s contention, if sustained, would give a motorist intending to make a left turn into a street joining but not crossing another the right of way to enter the interséction and make the left turn over an opposing motorist on the same stréet reaching the intersection at approximately the same time, and in-effect nullify § 304.020(6) which requires a motorist desiring to turn left to proceed beyond the- center of the intersection before turning left- Section 304.020(12) applies to motorists approaching an’intersection on different streets. .With respect to this сontention other provisions of- the law exacting the highest degree of care of motorists would require the motorist desiring to so turn left to remain to his right of the center of the highway-until he could make the turn in the-exercise of proper care. Defendant under the instant facts was the motorist traveling around the curve and making a turn to the left.
Plaintiff contends defendant was guilty of: contributory negligence as a matter of law and was not entitled to his submissions of primary negligence'against plaintiff.
Defendant says the application of statutory regulations of motor vehicle traffic gives consideration to the existing circumstances and conditions, and the regulations are not to be applied rigidly, absolutely and peremptorily or receive literal constructions resulting in ah absurdity, citing Wines v. Goodyear T. & R. Co., Mo. App.,
Absent statute or ordinance-regulation of vehicle traffic at highway intersections, the vehicle first reáching and entering -the intersection has the right of way over a vehicle subsequently reaching the -intersection unless the situation would indicate to a reasonably prudent man-that to proceed would probably result in a collision, it being the- duty of the second arrival to allow the first arrival tb pass in-safety. Minnis v. William J. Lemp Brewing Co., Mo. App.,
*650 This common law rule has been changed by § 304.020(12), requiring a motorist approaching from the left to yield the right of way to another .approaching from the right on an intersecting highway; provided: “The right of way shall mean the right to proceed when two or more vehicles will reаch such intersection at approximately the same time.”
Generally, an issue of contributory negligence turns on the testimony of an opponent’s witness or on conflicting testimony, and in such instances the issue is for the jury. Where a litigant’s own evidence establishes his contributory negligence, the issue is for the court.
The defendant saw the Chevrolet when the two cars were 300 feet apart, and each 150 feet from the point of impact. Each car was traveling 50 miles an hour. The greatest length of the area common to both highways was 172 feet, which was along the south edge of a prolongation of the pavement for Mo. 16 through the intersection. When plaintiff entered the west end of this common area defendant was approximately 133 feet from the intersection; and when defendant entered the intersection plaintiff had covered approximately [581] 136 of the 172 feet, was just south of the end of the painted center line of Mo. 16, and about to pass from the area common to both highways and wholly onto Mo. 16. This is not a case of split second priority in entering upon the intersection. Under the authorities plaintiff had the superior right to proceed across the interseсtion and, at first, a right to assume that defendant would obey the law and yield the right of way. Knight v. Richey,
Defendant testified he realized that plaintiff would turn to the right around the curve on Mo. 6 or go straight ahead due east on Mo. 16. If plaintiff intended to go around the curve, he would be expected to start turning at the west end of the curve. Defendant states in his brief that “plaintiff’s automobile was not swerved before the accident.” Soon after plaintiff passed said west end of the curve defendant had warning and should have realized from plaintiff’s failure to turn that plaintiff was going straight ahead and not turning. Defendant testified: “Q. You are unable to tell the jury then any more than you did put on the brakes sometime before this accident occurred, is that right? A. Immediately before it occurred, yes, sir. Q. You mean that you did put them on immediately before it occurred? A. Yes. Q. Sir? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can’t you give us some idea how far back you were when you put your brakes on? A. Approximately fifly feet. Q. You traveled then with the Jones car in *651 your range of visibility -for approximately a hundred feet before 'you did anything, is that right? A. Yes.’-’-
“Every person operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state shall drive the same in a careful and prudent-manner,-and shall exercise the highest degree of care, and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person * § 304.010; Borgstede v. Waldbauer,
Defendant may not at first have been chargeable with knowledge of plaintiff’s intention to proceed straight ahead due east but he was-aware of plaintiff’s approach. Defendant’s testimony establishes that he was taking a chance on being able to go through the intersection- at undiminished speed after he saw plaintiff would reach the-intersection well ahead of him and also after he saw рlaintiff in • and proceeding across the intersection. He admittedly traveled approximately 100 feet before -acting to avoid a collision with a car that -traveled about 136 feet into the intersection, needed only a fraction of a- second -to be in the clear, and which had entered the intersection when defendant was about 133 feet from it.' The facts demonstrate that neither defendant nor plaintiff was able to stop his automobile -within a braking distance of approximately 50 feet. We may assume that experienced motorists in the exercise of the highest degreе of care know that ah' automobile cannot be stopped within a braking distance of 50 feet when traveling 50 miles an hour. Consult Pennington v. Weis,
It follows that defendant’s submissions of primary negligence should have been refused. His sole cause instruction should have been refused: Johnson v. Cox, Mo.,
*652
We here take up defendant’s contention that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law in crossing over the center line' of Mo. 6 dirfectly into the path of defendant’s- oncoming car at a time when defendant’s car was in dangerous proximity to plaintiff’s car-; citing Yeaman v. Storms, supra; Branscum v. Glaser, Mo.,
It is stated in Danzo v. Humfeld, Mo.,
Many motorists seemingly have the idea that the mere fact they reach and enter an intersection ahead of a motorist on an intersecting highwáy gives them the right to proceed across the intersection regardless of the conditions confronting them and relieves them of all caution. This is not the law. - Under § 304.010 motorists are required to exercise the highest degree of care at all times and places on the highways of this state. Gude v. Weick Bros. Undertaking Co.,
All of the affirmative testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses established that plaintiff operated his car -without any change in its speed or course across the intersection until he applied his brakes within approximately 53 feet of the point of impact. Defendant’s testimony did not-aid plaintiff. Mrs. Garrett testified that she heard a “screeching sound of the tires” of defendant’s car and that the sound accompanied the “weaving” of the'Hudson. The “screeching sound” wаs, óf course, the'result of defendant’s application of the brakes. Plaintiff, in the exercise of the highest degree of care, was warned by the highway signs for eastbound traffic, first, that he was approaching the junction of Mo. 6 and Mo. 16; that Mo. 6 turned to his right and Mo,
16'
continued straight ahead, and this warning was repeated when he entered the west end of the intersection. Plaintiff knew from these warning signs that westbound traffic'on Mo. 6 crossed the lane for eastbound traffic on Mo. 16, plaintiff’s intended line of travel. Notwithstanding these warnings, plaintiff continued ahead at unabated speed and took no action to avоid a collision until it was too late to do
*653
so.- Consideration is to be given the unusual situation* existing, at the intersection; the distance plaintiff had to travel to cross the. intersection; the fact'that defendant’s car was within his observation both prior to and after he entered the intersection; that the only line of travel for defendant (westbound) on. Mo. 6 was across Mo. 16 at the intersecton, whereas plaintiff, at first and depending on his- intentions, could have proceeded southeast along the curve of Mo. 6 or, straight east on Mo. 16, and that -defendant was proceeding ahead at unabated speed. With each car equally ¡distant from the point of-impact (150 feet) and approaching the point of impact, at-the same speed (50 miles an- hour), as the case, was submitted in the trial eourt [583]- and- here; it is inescapable -that the collision, as demonstrated by the results, was inevitable unless plaintiff- ■ or defendant took action to prevent it, which, from all the affirmative testimony in the-case, neither did until it was too late. The greater the. speed-the earlier the situation should be -comprehended. The precautions to be taken increase with the danger encountered. - Muсh of what has been said regarding defendant’s negligence as a matter of law is applicable here. Reasonable minds should agree that plaintiff and defendant were taking chances in attempting-to pass through the intersection ahead of the other, and each was negligent as a- matter of law. See authorities cited re defendant’s .negligence as a matter of. law, and also Hammond v. Emery-B.-T. Dry Goods Co., Mo.,
Plaintiff also contends defendant "did not make a submissible ease under the humanitarian doctrine on plaintiff’s failure to turn to his right. Plaintiff stresses a portion of defendant’s testimony that it appeared to defendant plaintiff “had started around the curve and then changed his mind and pulled to the left” and argues defendant’s imminent peril did not arise “until plaintiff ‘started to cross the white line’ ” of Mo. 6; that is, when each car was only about 50 feet from the point of impact. Defendant testified “Well-,- I couldn’t tell you exactly,” “I couldn’t tell you for sure” whether plaintiff proceeded straight east; that, asked whether plaintiff 'was going to his right and then ta his left, defendant‘answered: “No,'-he was following his line of traffic however it runs ajnd then’be appeared to cross the line into niy lane of traffic”; that-defеndant'was telling counsel plaintiff “‘crossed the center line into" my lane of traffic without any-warning.” We have studied defendant’s testimony on this fact issue with- extreme'care and from the record his only testimony having probative value on the issue is that plaintiff proeéeded through the intersection' in plaintiff’s lane of traffic and, instead of turning southeast along the curve of Mo. 6, plaintiff crossed the curved painted center line of Mo. 6 in the eastbound traffic lane of Mot 16 in the intersection as eastbound traffic on Mo. 16 was required to do. We *654 are of opinion the imminent peril zone is not as restricted аs plaintiff contends.
■“The meaning of the term ‘imminent peril’ as the basic fact of the humanitarian doctrine.has been well settled. The peril truly must be imminent-^-that is, certain, immediate, and impending; it may not be remote, uncertain or contingent. A.likelihood or bare possibility of injury is not sufficient * Blaser v. Coleman,
*655 Mrs. Garrett, plaintiff’s witness, testified that she was conscious at all times during the occurrence; that defendant’s car. was swerving; that she put her arm up to keep from hitting the top of the car and laid a hand on her brother’s shoulder to help hold herself. She described in detail what happened to Mr. and Mrs. Jones and herself, stating that her foot was caught between the seats and was nearly severed and the bone was under her brother’s arm and penetrating his body, and that it was fifteen minutes by her watch before help arrived — Mr. Gnuse and a companion. They found defendant slumped over the wheel of his ear and thought he was dead. They heard a woman, Mrs. Garrett, screaming in the other car and ran to it. Plaintiff offеred to prove by Mr. Gnuse that Mrs. Garrett was screaming with pain; was very bloody; was repeatedly shouting: “He is dead”; was making frenzied prayers to God; was in a condition of physical and mental shock, and, mixed in with the screaming and praying, urns repeatedly saying: “Why did he keep swerving.” The offer of proof was refused.
Plaintiff’s position is that the statement “why did he keep swerving” was admissible under the res gestae rule because the testimony of Mrs. Garrett established the nature and extent of her injuries and her condition of shock. Trial courts are privileged to exercise a reasonable discretion in determining whether hearsay testimony of statements made are admissible as a part of the res gestae. Moore v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., Mo.,
The opinion need not be extended to develop other matters mentioned in the briefs. Some are sufficiently covered for the purpos'es of this review by what has been said and others are likely not to recur.
*656 The judgment is reversed and-the cause is remanded.
PER. CURIAMThe foregoing opinion by Bohling, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.