Opinion ID: 2367472
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to charge.

Text: Defendants seasonably requested, and the court did not give, a charge based directly upon the language of 23 V.S.A. § 1051(b). They seasonably excepted to this omission. 23 V.S.A. § 1051(b) reads as follows: (b) No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for a driver to yield. The refusal to so charge was completely warranted under the circumstances of this case. Three elements, not merely one, were completely lacking in the evidence. There was no testimony of any sudden departure from the curb by the plaintiff. The defendant driver never saw plaintiff before the impact, nor did other witnesses present. The plaintiff testified to a normal gait. And it was undisputed that he was about three-quarters of the way across Church Street when hit. Nor did he go into the path of defendants' taxi. That vehicle was going east on Bank Street, stopped, and then turned left into plaintiff's path. Nor was it, on the evidence, impossible for the driver to yield. He had already stopped, and had only to remain stopped while plaintiff completed his crossing. Although correct as an abstract statement of the law, the requested charge had no application to the case at bar, and was properly omitted. The judgment order below is corrected to read defendants in each instance where the word defendant appears, and as so corrected is affirmed.