Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Poling v. Melee

Decided: May 17, 1935.

CHARLOTTE A. POLING AND RUSSELL POLING, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
WALTER E. MELEE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



On appeal from the Supreme Court, Monmouth Circuit.

For the appellant, J. Victor Garton.

For the respondents, Theodore D. Parsons.

Campbell

The opinion of the court was delivered by

CAMPBELL, CHANCELLOR. This is an appeal from judgments in favor of the plaintiffs below entered upon verdicts in their favor, the amount of the verdict in favor of the plaintiff Russell Poling having been reduced upon a rule for new trial and the judgment in his favor being for such reduced amount.

It is not necessary to state the proofs in any great detail. The action was for damages for injuries to Mrs. Poling, and the resulting damage to her husband, occasioned by her coming in contact with the motor car driven by the defendant

upon a public highway which Mrs. Poling was in the act of crossing, on foot. As she was about to enter upon the highway, for the purpose of crossing it, she saw the car of the defendant approaching her from her left, at which time it was some distance from her, such distance being variously estimated as being from one hundred and fifty to two hundred and seventy-nine feet. She determined that she could safely go forward across the highway, in front of the approaching car and took several steps out in the roadway, when she realized that the car was bearing down upon her at a rate of speed which made it impossible for her to pass in front of it in safety. She stopped, was struck by the side of the car and injured.

The defendant testified that he saw Mrs. Poling step into the highway when he was two hundred feet away from her and that she proceeded forward, in crossing the roadway, for some distance and then attempted to turn back.

There are three grounds for reversal urged and argued:

1. Error in refusing to nonsuit.

2. Error in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.