Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D lived on a farm south of Emerado, North Dakota. D decided to drive to Emerado. She left the farm during the evening and started driving north on Highway No. 3, which is a paved farm road. She saw a car approaching from the north, and when the cars were approximately a mile apart, she dimmed her headlights. Immediately after the car had passed her vehicle, she became aware that a tractor towing a plow was proceeding north, directly in front of her. She applied her brakes but still hit the plow. The impact forced the front end of her car up on the plow and, and she and was knocked unconscious. P sued D for negligence. D testified that the road preceding the point of impact was not level and stated that she had not seen any lights or reflectors on the plow or the tractor that she could remember; that at the time of the accident she was driving at a speed of between 50 and 60 miles an hour. P claimed personal injuries and damages to his plow and tractor. D admitted that the collision occurred and alleged that the sole and proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of P being on a public highway after sunset, without proper lights, reflectors, or other warnings. D counterclaimed for her damages. Edward Gross, an adjuster, testified in part that he talked to P's son, who told him that the lens in the small light had been missing from its frame for some time prior to the accident. Three more witnesses also testified about the condition of the rear red light. The jury dismissed both claims. P motion for a new trial was denied. P appealed. P contends that Gross' testimony concerning the statement of D's son was hearsay.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co