Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P was driving her car when her right front tire suddenly struck a large pothole in the street, causing her to lose control of her car. The car crossed the centerline and struck the left rear of a pickup owned and operated by Rogers. P's car then continued westbound, and the left front of her vehicle struck the left front of a vehicle owned and operated by Black. The collision with Black's car spun P's vehicle around, and it came to rest in the westbound lane of traffic pointing in an eastward direction approximately 270 feet from the location of the pothole. Rogers made a claim for property damage in the amount of $492.41. Black also made a claim for property damage to his vehicle and for his personal injury against P. It was settled without trial for the sum of $11,215.50. A second suit filed by Black's daughter and her children against P was likewise settled for the sum of $1,665. P was required to pay the various claimants the total sum of $13,372.91 in settlement of all the claims that were made against her as a result of the accidents. P's vehicle was a total loss. P filed a written claim with D. D never responded to the claim and P filed a lawsuit. P claimed damages and contribution. At trial, D denied the existence of any negligence on its part and alleged that the sole proximate cause of the accident and the injury sustained to the various third persons with whom P settled was a result of P's negligence. D also claimed that P had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. The trial court held that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of D. The trial court ordered D to pay P the loss related to her motor vehicle. The trial court then held that because P was not at all negligent, and the negligence was solely that of the D, P could not recover from D under the theory of contribution. This appeal resulted.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co