Case Title: Horrocks v. Rounds

Citation: 370 P.2d 799, 70 N.M. 73

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1962-04-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
370 P.2d 799 (1962) 70 N.M. 73 Barbara J. HORROCKS, Administratrix of the Estate of Hazel Vredeveld, Deceased, Jack P. Clark, Lonnie Mead and Dora Mead, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert Edison ROUNDS, Defendant-Appellee. No. 6833. Supreme Court of New Mexico. April 4, 1962. Rehearing Denied April 4, 1962. *800 Coker, Boyd & May, Albuquerque, for appellants. Adams & Calkins, Albuquerque, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Upon consideration of Motion for Rehearing, the original opinion heretofore filed is withdrawn and the following substituted therefor. CHAVEZ, Justice. This is an action to recover for personal injuries and property damage sustained in an automobile collision. The complaint alleged negligence, and appellee answered denying negligence and setting up the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. The case was tried to a jury. After the close of the evidence, when both sides had rested, appellee moved for and was granted the right, over objection, to amend his pleading so as to allege the additional affirmative defense of unavoidable accident. The jury rendered a verdict for appellee; motion for new trial was overruled; judgment was entered dismissing appellants' causes of action with prejudice. From said judgment, appeal was taken. The accident in question occurred on September 5, 1958, at about 3:30 P.M. approximately two miles west of Clines Corners, on the west-bound side of U.S. 66, a four-lane divided highway, when appellee's car crashed into the rear of appellants' 1957 Ford which was parked partly on and partly off the north shoulder of the highway some 600 feet west of the crest of a hill. Appellants had stopped at the scene of an earlier accident consisting of a large trailer and truck which had overturned and was lying entirely on the 63-foot bar ditch or neutral ground dividing the two eastbound lanes from the two west-bound lanes. The day was cold, windy and overcast, with intermittent rain and drizzle. Visibility was good, however, and there is testimony that one could see from one to one and one-half *801 miles from the crest of the hill westward. The road was extremely slick when it was wet. Appellee testified that he had been driving 50 m.p.h. when he came over the crest of the hill. He saw the overturned trailer which appeared to be a Greyhound bus from a distance, saw a burning flare in the middle of the road, and then finally saw the parked car of appellants. There was no other traffic on the west-bound lanes, which were a total of 36 feet wide. He attempted to slow down, braking successfully down to 30 m.p.h., swerved to pass the parked car as he was in the right lane, skidded and crashed. He was aware of the fact that the highway was slick when wet having seen the warning sign at Clines Corners, and having previously slowed down to 50 m.p.h. due to this warning. There is testimony that the road in this area was abnormally slick; that there had been trouble with it; and the investigating officer's opinion was that the only way one could determine the actual character of the surface was by braking abruptly or swerving unless one noted the warning signs. Appellants rely on five points for reversal: I. The trial court erred in instructing the jury, over appellants' objections, upon the claim or defense of unavoidable accident, as a jury question is not fairly raised in the evidence and such instruction is contrary to the law and the evidence. II. The trial court erred in charging the jury upon the effect of Section 64-18-49, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., that a violation thereof would constitute negligence per se on the part of the appellants, since the facts of the case conclusively show that the statute is not applicable. III. The trial court erred in charging the jury on the doctrine of sudden emergency since there was no evidence to support consideration of such doctrine and such charge was contrary to the law and the evidence. IV. The trial court erred in charging the jury on the doctrine of imputed negligence of a driver to passengers on the theory of joint adventure, for the reason that same is contrary to the law and the evidence. V. The trial court erred in charging the jury on the doctrine of assumed risk by the appellants, since application of said doctrine and consideration thereby by the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence. The cause is now before us on motion for rehearing, which has been duly considered and is denied. We remain convinced of the correctness of our conclusion that the case must be retried because of errors committed by the trial court; furthermore, we adhere to our view of the law as set forth in our original opinion, now withdrawn. In it, we considered only the second point raised by appellants since, under the facts as originally presented and argued to us, it was determinative of the case. We held that, where it is impractical for a car to park entirely off the highway, it is not a violation of the provisions of § 64-18-49, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., for it to be parked partially or entirely on the highway, regardless of the reason for stopping, so long as the other mandatory provisions of the statute are met; i.e., that an unobstructed width of highway opposite the standing vehicle is left for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of such stopped vehicle is available for a distance of 200 feet in each direction. McGovern v. Greyhound Corporation, 53 Wash. 2d 773, 337 P.2d 290. Indeed, in the case of a divided highway such as Highway 66, probably the only clear view required is the one ahead. The presence or absence of a compelling reason for stopping may well be pertinent insofar as the issue of contributory negligence is concerned, but it has no bearing on the issue of violation of the statute. We therefore rejected appellee's construction of the statute. Appellee, for the first time on rehearing, points to certain testimony which may be interpreted to show that it was practical for appellants to have parked entirely off the highway. Thus, if we consider *802 these new facts raised by appellee, it would have been possible for the trial court to have properly instructed upon the statute, and its violation would have been negligence per se. Zamora v. J. Korber & Co., 59 N.M. 33, 278 P.2d 569. We note in passing that the actual instruction given by the court was erroneous because it did not inform the jury that the violation, if any, must also be found to be the proximate cause of the accident. Martin v. Gomez, 69 N.M. 1, 363 P.2d 365; Turner v. McGee, 68 N.M. 191, 360 P.2d 383; Isaac v. Seguritan, 66 N.M. 410, 349 P.2d 126; Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Horne, 65 N.M. 440, 338 P.2d 1067; and Williams v. Haas, 52 N.M. 9, 189 P.2d 632. Appellants did not point out this specific vice to the trial court in their objection to the instruction, and thus it was insufficient to preserve the error for review. Sturgeon v. Clark, 69 N.M. 132, 364 P.2d 757; and Zamora v. Smalley, 68 N.M. 45, 358 P.2d 362, and cases cited therein. As originally presented to this court, the facts indicated that it was impractical even impossible to have parked entirely off the highway; therefore, it appeared that the learned trial court committed error by charging upon issues which, although pleaded, were not raised by the evidence. Reed v. Styron, 69 N.M. 262, 365 P.2d 912; Pitner v. Loya, 67 N.M. 1, 350 P.2d 230; and Thompson v. Anderman, 59 N.M. 400, 418, 285 P.2d 507. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 15(6), we did not search the record but accepted the uncontradicted assertions of fact as set forth by appellants' brief that the shoulder of the road at or near the place where appellants' car was parked was too narrow to permit off-highway parking. Appellants' presentation of the facts in this light was prompted by their acquiescing in appellee's theory of the case that the sole reason the car was parked partially on the highway was the physical impossibility of parking it otherwise. Only the testimony given by appellee's witnesses was cited; the testimony of appellants' witnesses that the car was not parked on the highway was ignored. This appellants did under the belief that they were complying with the rule requiring that only evidence favorable to the verdict and to the giving of the instruction be considered. Minor v. Homestake-Sapin Partners Mine, 69 N.M. 72, 364 P.2d 134; and Morrison v. Rodey, 65 N.M. 474, 340 P.2d 409. Neither side apparently realized, nor did they argue, that this omitted testimony could logically be interpreted to indicate that the shoulder was sufficiently wide to permit off-highway parking and that, if appellants were parked partially on the highway, the reason for their doing so could have been other than the physical impossibility of parking off the highway. As we interpret the statute, a driver must always park off the highway when practical to do so; the other requirements of clear view and sufficient passing space are not pertinent unless and until it is shown that it is impractical to park off the highway at the particular place in question. We therefore turn our attention to appellants' point I and examine the trial court's charge to the jury on unavoidable accident and the objection thereto by appellants. The trial court, in instruction No. 6, informed the jury that the appellee relied upon three defenses, the third being unavoidable accident. He then defined unavoidable accident as follows: Appellants' objection reads as follows: Under the view we take of the facts adduced in this case, we consider that the giving of an instruction on unavoidable accident was prejudicial error as being unsupported by the evidence. We need not, therefore, consider the first portion of appellants' objection to the giving of this instruction on the grounds of surprise. Nor are we in a position to review the form of the instruction, since no specific objection was made to alert the mind of the trial court to the specific defects contained therein. Sturgeon v. Clark, supra; and Zamora v. Smalley, supra. We do comment, however, that the learned trial judge failed to caution the jury that the burden of proof as to the affirmative defense of unavoidable accident was upon the appellee. In addition, the instruction was defective in that it was not: We may even assume that the trial court, in conformity with the general policy of allowing liberal amendments, properly allowed appellee to amend his answer to set forth the affirmative defense of unavoidable accident. In such event, we have repeatedly held that a party is entitled to an instruction on the theory of his case upon which there is evidence. Martin v. Gomez, supra; Zamora v. Smalley, supra; Lucero v. Torres, 67 N.M. 10, 350 P.2d 1028, and cases cited therein. Appellee contends that we cannot hold that it is error to instruct on the issue of unavoidable accident unless we can find him guilty of negligence as a matter of law. This would appear to be true absent any issue of contributory negligence. Jontz v. Alderete, 64 N.M. 163, 326 P.2d 95, concurring opinion of Justice McGhee. In the case at bar, however, even were we to find that appellee was negligent as a matter of law, there is still the issue of contributory negligence. We have held that this is usually an issue for the jury and we are not prepared to say that on this issue the minds of reasonable men could not differ; although we have indicated that, on the other hand, the mere parking of the automobile on the highway, even in violation of the statute and being negligence per se, is not necessarily a contributing cause of the accident as a matter of law. Brown v. Hayes, 69 N.M. 24, 363 P.2d 632; Gutierrez v. Valley Irrigation & Livestock Co., 68 N.M. 6, 357 P.2d 664; Maryland Casualty Company v. Jolly, 67 N.M. 101, 352 P.2d 1013; Sandoval v. Brown, 66 N.M. 235, 346 P.2d 551; and Steadman v. Shackelton, 52 Wash. 2d 22, 322 P.2d 833, 837. The fact that other cars were able to pass appellants' parked car, including two large trucks almost side by side, under the identical circumstances facing appellee, if believed by the jury, would certainly tend *804 to negate any possibility of contributory negligence. Likewise, the jury on retrial would not be bound, as we are, to view the facts in a light most favorable to appellee. They would be at liberty to resolve the conflicts in the testimony regarding where the car was parked, on or off the highway, and the actual distance from the crest of the hill to the point of impact in favor of appellants. Their resolution of these facts would certainly bear on whether appellants' actions were a contributing proximate cause of the accident. The propriety of giving an instruction on unavoidable accident is tested by examining the evidence to determine whether a jury could conclude that the accident occurred without the negligence of anyone being the proximate cause. Baros v. Kazmierczwk, 68 N.M. 421, 362 P.2d 798; Zamora v. Smalley, supra; and Lucero v. Torres, supra. We must again caution, as we did in both the Lucero and Baros cases, that it is not every motor vehicle accident case that warrants the giving of an unavoidable accident instruction. There should be a genuine basis for the giving of the instruction such as some reasonably unexpected surprise or road condition, unpreventable mechancial failure, sudden appearance and reasonably unanticipated presence of a pedestrian or other object in the road; and such must be coupled with circumstances which present a fair issue of whether the failure of the driver to anticipate or sooner guard against this danger, or to avoid it, is consistent with a conclusion of the exercise of his due care. In such cases the trial courts are inclined to grant the instruction and their action in so doing is generally approved by the appellate courts. Baros v. Kazmierczwk, supra; and Lucero v. Torres, supra. The only evidence in the case at bar, which might possibly have supported the giving of this instruction, is that the road was extremely slippery, and the testimony given by Officer O'Connor as to his opinion concerning the cause of the accident, as follows: However, when queried what Mr. Rounds, the appellee, had told him at the time of the accident, he read from his report as follows: On cross-examination we find the following: We are not here considering the testimony of appellants' witnesses that two trucks passed them side-by-side. Nor do we consider any of the testimony that Mr. Rounds, at the time of the accident, admitted that it was his fault, since there is a conflict thereon. We do note, however, that even after the second accident it was uncontradicted that traffic was able to pass, although the right lane was now almost entirely blocked. Of course, by this time, there were highway department men directing traffic, but it is not clear from the testimony how far away they were from the scene of the accident. We turn, instead, to the testimony of appellee and that of his wife. On direct examination, appellee testified: On cross-examination Mr. Rounds testified as follows: On re-direct examination Mr. Rounds testified: On re-cross examination Mr. Rounds testified: Mrs. Rounds on direct examination testified: On cross-examination Mrs. Rounds testified: On redirect, Mrs. Rounds testified as follows: In view of the foregoing testimony and that of the only eyewitness, Marcus Catanach, called by appellee, it is clear that there is no factual basis for the opinion of O'Connor that the accident was caused by appellee's braking at the top of the hill and immediately skidding due to surprise. Pure conjecture and surmise not supported by proof cannot be a basis for an inference of fact. Turner v. McGee, supra. A reasonable inference from the testimony could well be that appellee was distracted by the trailer and the flare and failed to observe appellants' car, or realize that it was parked until too late to do anything but swerve abruptly and apply the brakes, thus causing the skid. It cannot be seriously contended that a car under control cannot pass another car on a divided highway where there is no traffic, where *810 there is a width of at least 29 feet in which to pass, and where there is from 500 to 600 feet in which to gradually execute the maneuver. Further, the evidence shows that other vehicles did pass appellants' parked car. Even if appellee did see the car at the point where it would have been visible to one exercising normal prudence, there was no reason for him to have waited until within a close distance of it to turn out to pass the parked car. Although the road was slippery, appellee was aware of this fact as he had observed the warning signs. The testimony of both appellee and his wife does indicate that there was an interval between the time he first came over the crest of the hill and the time he attempted to turn out. Despite Mrs. Rounds' inability to correctly gauge distances in feet and yards, it is clear from the testimony that appellee did not start his passing turn from the point at the top of the hill, where he should have seen appellants' parked car. Appellee is responsible for seeing that which a reasonably prudent person, exercising due care, should have seen. Knarian v. South Haven Sand Company, 361 Mich. 631, 106 N.W.2d 151. The Wisconsin court, in Bowers v. Treuthardt, 5 Wis.2d 271, 92 N.W.2d 878, said: And in Williams v. Neff, 64 N.M. 182, 326 P.2d 1073, we said: "* * * A motorist must exercise care commensurate with the situation confronting him. * * *" See also Brownell v. Fred M. Manning, Inc., D.C., 102 F. Supp. 138; and § 64-18-1.1, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. Appellee had a duty to have his car under control and to maintain a proper lookout. Porter v. Ferguson-Steere Motor Company, 63 N.M. 466, 321 P.2d 1112; and Button v. Metz, 66 N.M. 485, 349 P.2d 1047. We stated in Stambaugh v. Hayes, supra (44 N.M. 443, 103 P.2d 640): We therefore hold that under the facts of this case, or upon retrial, the evidence being similar, it would be error to instruct upon unavoidable accident. This is true, even though skidding on a slippery pavement need not be due to negligence. The inquiry, in such instances, is to the driver's conduct previous to such skidding. Zanolini v. Ferguson-Steere Motor Co., 58 N.M. 96, 265 P.2d 983; and State, to Use of Whitaker v. Greaves, 191 Md. 712, 62 A.2d 630, 633. Since the court committed reversible error by instructing on unavoidable accident, we need not consider the other points raised by appellants. Because the case must be be retried and since the third point raised by appellants is so closely akin to the first, we will comment briefly on the issue of sudden emergency. Appellants attack the giving of this instruction on the ground that there was no evidence to support the consideration of such doctrine. In view of the facts as set forth above, we consider such an instruction inapplicable and erroneous. Where the emergency or perilous situation is created through the driver's own negligence, as here, he cannot avoid liability for injury on the ground that his acts were done in the stress of emergency. Frei v. Brownlee, 56 N.M. 677, 248 P.2d 671; and Seele v. Purcell, 45 N.M. 176, 113 P.2d 320. The cause is reversed and remanded to the district court with direction to set aside the verdict and judgment based thereon; to grant a new trial, and proceed in a manner not inconsistent with the views herein expressed. IT IS SO ORDERED. *811 COMPTON, C. J., and NOBLE, J., concur. CARMODY and MOISE, JJ., not participating.