Opinion ID: 2223432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was plaintiff, as a matter of law, guilty of contributory negligence?

Text: Defendant asserts that it was the duty of plaintiff to stop when his vision ahead was lost, due to the rain, and that his failure to do so constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law, citing Townsend v. Armstrong, 220 Iowa 396, 260 N.W. 17 and cases cited therein. Assuming such to have been the law, it is no longer so recognized. In Rabenold v. Hutt, 226 Iowa 321, 283 N.W. 865, we held that the driver of a car encountering fog, is not bound to stop, as a matter of law, and wait for the fog to lift in order to escape the charge of contributory negligence. He must, however, exercise a degree of care consistent with the existing conditions. See also, Ellis v. Robb, Iowa, 47 N.W.2d 246. Defendant also contends plaintiff failed to maintain a proper lookout. In addition to the facts, above set forth, plaintiff on cross-examination, stated that he kept pretty close to the curb. He was then asked: Q. Then you were looking at the curb to your right? A. Oh, not exactly, I just followed that along as sort of a guide.    Viewing this record in its most favorable light to plaintiff and giving to it such inferences as may reasonably be drawn therefrom, whether using the curb at the right side of the street as a guide as he proceeded forward at an admitted speed of not to exceed twelve miles per hour, constituted a proper lookout is clearly a question upon which reasonable minds might differ. It was a question for the jury. We think the case comes within the rule announced in Central States Electric Co. v. McVay, 232 Iowa 469, 5 N.W.2d 817. The record stands uncontradicted that plaintiff knew of the bridge; he had driven across it many times going from the west to the east, but never going from the east to the west, as on the night in question; he had never walked across the bridge; did not know of the existence of the post standing 5.4 feet to the south of the north rail of the bridge and the curb along the north side of the Boulevard. It also appears that the post was of a drab gray color and that weeds were growing up around it. Certainly one cannot say as a matter of law, that such a situation is one that might reasonably be expected or anticipated by one using the street and who has no knowledge thereof. Under the record, we hold that a question for the jury, both as to the negligence of the defendant and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, is made out and that the trial court was in error in directing a verdict for the defendant. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded. Reversed and remanded. WENNERSTRUM, BLISS, GARFIELD, MULRONEY and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.