Case Name: Donna L. KELMIS, for the Use and Benefit of Herself and Charles Joseph Kelmis, Jr., Ricky Lynne Kelmis, David Lee Kelmis, Jeffrey Scott Kelmis, and Carla Dee Kelmis, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CARDINAL PETROLEUM COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant and Respondent
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1968-01-15
Citations: 156 N.W.2d 710
Docket Number: Civ. No. 8420
Parties: Donna L. KELMIS, for the Use and Benefit of Herself and Charles Joseph Kelmis, Jr., Ricky Lynne Kelmis, David Lee Kelmis, Jeffrey Scott Kelmis, and Carla Dee Kelmis, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CARDINAL PETROLEUM COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant and Respondent.
Judges: ERICKSTAD and PAULSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 156
Pages: 710–723

Head Matter:
Donna L. KELMIS, for the Use and Benefit of Herself and Charles Joseph Kelmis, Jr., Ricky Lynne Kelmis, David Lee Kelmis, Jeffrey Scott Kelmis, and Carla Dee Kelmis, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CARDINAL PETROLEUM COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant and Respondent.
Civ. No. 8420.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Jan. 15, 1968.
Rehearing Denied March 1, 1968.
Pringle, Herigstad, Meschke, Loder, Ma-honey & Purdy, Minot, for plaintiff and appellant.
Palda, Palda, Peterson & Anderson, Minot, for defendant and respondent.

Opinion:
STRUTZ, Judge.
This is an action for the wrongful death of Charles Kelmis, the plaintiff's husband, brought by the plaintiff as the surviving wife, for herself and for the use and benefit of the five surviving minor children of the plaintiff and the deceased.
Pursuant to a written motion by the plaintiff, the trial court ordered the issues of liability and damages tried separately, and thereafter proceeded to try the issue of liability. After hearing on this issue, the court ordered that the plaintiff's action be dismissed. From judgment entered pursuant to such order, the plaintiff has appealed to this court, demanding trial de no-vo.
There is not much dispute as to the facts. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff's husband was employed by The Boeing Company. On the morning of the accident he, with three other employees of that company, was en route to a missile site designated as "Mike-One," with one of such employees, Andrew Freed, driving a 1965 Plymouth sedan which Boeing had leased from National Car Rentals. Plaintiff's decedent was riding as a passenger in the left rear of the car. The supervisor of ' the crew was riding as a passenger in the right front seat. The driver and the other employees, including the plaintiff's decedent, were mechanics employed by Boeing.
This crew left Minot on the morning of the accident at approximately 7:05, en route to Missile Site Mike-One. They proceeded north on U. S. Highway No. 83 to the Lansford intersection and turned west on county highway No. 16, which is a graveled road. Freed, the driver, testified that as he drove west on county highway No. 16 he was traveling between fifty and fifty-five miles an hour, while the defendant's driver testified that defendant's vehicle was traveling about 40 miles an hour.
The driver of the car was the only survivor of the Boeing crew involved in the accident. He evidently suffered amnesia as a result of injuries received, for he cannot remember anything after passing a point on highway No. 16 some twelve miles east of the scene of the collision.
The other vehicle involved in the accident was the defendant's 1964 Mack tractor and trailer, weighing 37,000 pounds, which had an over-all length of fifty-four feet. It was being driven by an employee of the defendant, Cardinal Petroleum Company, who admittedly was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident in the course of his employment. This vehicle was en route to an oil well being drilled north of Carpió. ' The vehicles collided at the intersection of county highway No. 28 and county highway No. 16. At the point of the accident, county highway No. 28 runs north and south, while county highway No. 16 runs in an easterly and westerly direction.
It is undisputed that traffic on county highway No. 16, as it approaches the intersection with county highway No. 28, is controlled by a "yield right of way" sign. It is also conceded that as county highway No. 28 approaches the intersection with county highway No. 16, there is a sign approximately 500 feet from the intersection giving notice of the approaching junction.
From the record in this case, it is apparent that the intersection of the two highways is a wide-open intersection. There are no buildings, no trees, no hills, nor vegetation which could have obstructed the visibility of either driver for a distance of at least one-half mile from the intersection, with the exception of a slight knoll about 100 feet in length on highway No. 16, approximately 1,000 feet east of the intersection. It is contended by the defendant that if a car should happen to be behind the knoll when a driver approaches the intersection from the north on highway No. 28, the car on highway No. 16 would be hidden from view for a distance of about 100 feet. This knoll, however, ends 1,000 feet east of the intersection, and for the last thousand feet a vehicle approaching from the east on highway No. 16 would be in plain view from highway No. 28.
The record also discloses that the weather on the morning of the accident was clear, and that the highways were in good winter driving condition. There was some snow in the ditches, but the highways were clear.
The only eyewitness to the accident who was able to testify was the driver of the truck, since the only survivor of the crew traveling in the Boeing car does not remember anything concerning the accident. The truck driver does not remember whether he looked to the east for traffic approaching the intersection on county highway No. 16, but he believes that he did so because he always looked for oncoming traffic when approaching an intersection. He did not, however, observe the Boeing car until it was at the intersection, directly in front of him. He then slammed on his brakes, but collision at that time was unavoidable and he collided with the Boeing car with great force and violence, killing three of its occupants. The collision occurred in approximately the center of the intersection. There were no tire marks on highway No. 16 to indicate that the Boeing car's brakes had been applied at all. There were, however, tire marks of approximately fourteen feet in length left by the defendant's vehicle.
The driver of the defendant's truck stated that there were no other cars, no machinery, nor any other circumstances which might have diverted his attention from the intersection.
On the above facts, the trial court found for the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. The court found that the driver of the defendant's vehicle was under no obligation to sense danger until the Boeing vehicle had reached a point on highway No'. 16 after which it could not brake to a stop before entering the intersection. The court found that, at the speed of travel of the Boeing vehicle, it could have stopped if its brakes had been applied approximately 128 feet from the intersection. The court further found that when the Boeing vehicle had reached that point, the defendant's vehicle was at a point on the highway where it could 'not' 'Ijave stopped in time to avoid the collision. The court further found that the driver of the defendant's vehicle was not under a duty to constantly look for approaching traffic from the left; that the driver did not, in fact, observe the Boeing Vehicle because his vision was obstructed by either the lefthand exterior rear-view mirror or the left corner post of the windshield.
The court also found that the defendant's driver is not held to the duty of the most careful driver but to the duty of a reasonably prudent driver, and that there is no evidence that such driver acted unreasonably; that the defendant's driver had a right to assume that the driver of the Boeing vehicle would respect his right of way, until he became aware that the plaintiff's driver was not going to do so; that the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle was the sole, proximate cause of the collision; and that there was no actual negligence on the part of the driver of the defendant's truck.
On appeal from a judgment in an action tried without a jury, where the appellant demands a trial de novo, the appellate court tries the entire case anew, giving apprecia ble weight to the findings of the trial court. Braaten v. Grabinski, 77 N.D. 422, 43 N.W.2d 381; Gust v. Wilson, 79 N.D. 865, 60 N.W.2d 202, 38 A.L.R.2d 1371; C.I.T. Corporation v. Hetland (N.D.), 143 N.W.2d 94.
This court will not apply the principle that in reviewing a case tried without a jury it will give appreciable weight to the findings of the trial court, in order to relieve it of the necessity of trying anew all questions of fact in the entire case. On trial de novo, the appellate court will find the facts for itself.
We agree with the trial court that the driver of the Boeing car was negligent in the operation of the vehicle in which the deceased was riding, and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the collision. However, that fact does not bar the plaintiff from recovering for the death of her husband if the driver of the defendant's vehicle also was negligent and if such negligence proximately contributed to the happening of the collision. Ordinarily, negligence on the part of the driver of a vehicle cannot be imputed to a passenger riding with him. Anderson v. Stokkeland (N.D.), 125 N.W.2d 665. Only the passenger's own negligence would bar his recovering. Fisher v. Suko (N.D.), 111 N.W.2d 360.
In this case, the trial court found that there was no negligence or contributory negligence, either actual or imputed, on the part of the plaintiff's decedent. On a careful review of the record, we find no evidence of negligence or contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which would bar the plaintiff's recovery in this action.
The defendant's employee was driving on a highway whose approaches were protected by signs requiring those entering from a side road to yield to traffic on such favored highway. However, a driver on such favored highway does not have an exclusive privilege which requires those who enter upon it to do so at their risk. The fact that a driver on approaching an intersection on a highway protected by "yield" signs knows that he has the right of way, does not give him the right to proceed without due care by failing to keep a proper lookout for others who may operate their vehicles in a negligent manner while entering the favored highway. Anderson v. Schreiner (N.D.), 94 N.W.2d 294. It is true that a driver on such favored highway has the right to assume that others will honor his right of way. But that does not allow him, because of such right, to drive without due care. Kuntz v. Stelmachuk (N.D.), 136 N.W.2d 810.
In the case before us, the driver of the defendant's vehicle admitted that he did not see the Boeing vehicle until it was just in front of him. He does not even know whether he looked to the east for approaching vehicles, although he thinks he might have because he usually did so on approaching an intersection. While defendant's driver had the right to assume that other vehicles would honor his right of way, he must, in the exercise of ordinary care, look for approaching vehicles on intersecting highways and his lookout must be such that he will see what a person in the exercise of ordinary care would see under like circumstances. Anderson v. Schreiner, supra. Here, it is undisputed that, except for approximately 100 feet, at a point 1,000 feet from the intersection, the driver on highway No. 28 had an unobstructed view of traffic approaching on highway No. 16 for more than half a mile. Had the driver of defendant's vehicle been exercising due care, he would have observed the Boeing vehicle aproaching the intersection in time to have avoided the collision. The mere fact that the defendant's driver had the right of way did not give him the right to proceed without due care by failing to keep a lookout for vehicles approaching on an intersecting road.
We find that the fact that the driver of defendant's vehicle did not actually see the Boeing vehicle approaching the intersection, under the circumstances, although it was in plain sight and could have been seen had he looked, was negligence on his part. The record clearly establishes that there were no distracting circumstances which might excusably have diverted his attention.
As we said in Anderson v. Schreiner, supra, the question to be determined in this case is whether the conduct of the defendant's driver on the favored highway was reasonable in the light of what he saw, or should have seen, had he looked. It is true that the law required the driver of the Boeing car to slow down, and to stop if hecessary, to yield the right of way to defendant's vehicle on the favored highway. But, had the defendant's driver looked, he would have seen that the Boeing vehicle was not going to do this. He would have seen the Boeing car for half a mile as it approached the intersection, except for a space of not more than 100 feet when it was partially hidden behind a knoll; but for the last 1,000 feet of the Boeing vehicle's approach to the intersection, he would have had it in constant view, and he would have known that it was not slowing for a yield. There is no evidence of any skid or brake marks in the gravel to indicate a slowing down of the Boeing car as it approached the intersection. Was it reasonable, in the light of yvhat he saw or should have seen had he maintained a proper lookout, for him to continue driving his heavy vehicle toward the intersection without decreasing his speed in order to avoid a possible collision, in view of the fact that there was a warning sign advising defendant's driver of the approaching yield intersection, when he saw, or should have seen, that the Boeing car was failing to slow down for a yield?
We find from this evidence that defendant driver's failure to decrease his speed when he saw or should have seen that the Boeing driver was not slowing for the purpose of yielding, was negligence, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the collision that followed. Where the driver on a favored highway sees, or in the exercise of due care should see, that the other vehicle is failing to yield as required by law, he, himself, is under a duty of slowing down to avoid a collision. We find that the failure of defendant's driver to do so was negligence and that his negligence under the circumstances of this case proximately contributed to the accident.
The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded for determination of the issue of damages.
ERICKSTAD and PAULSON, JJ., concur.