Opinion ID: 2224548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Signal

Text: At trial, Jean testified that she activated her left turn signal and that both her signal lights and brake lights were properly functioning prior to the collision. Sanborn testified that he was aware he was following a vehicle which was some distance ahead of him. He testified that he met several cars going the other way and their headlights affected his ability to see what was in front of him. He also testified that a coyote on the highway that night distracted him momentarily. The last vehicle that Sanborn met was a pickup with a skewed headlight. He told the investigating officer that he was blinded by the glare of this headlight and that when he recovered he saw Howards' car immediately in front of him. (Howards testified that they also saw the pickup with the skewed headlight but it did not affect their ability to see.) The investigating officer testified that Sanborn told him that he did not see a turn signal before the accident. This hearsay testimony from the officer is the only evidence in the record on Jean's failure to signal! Finally, at the hearing on the motion for judgment n.o.v., the trial court stated the following: Well, one part of the motion that causes me some concern is the contributory negligence. When I look back on it, I don't recall testimony by Mr. Sanborn thatthe only contributory negligence that I could possibly see that could have been imputed to Jean Howard in this case would be that she didn't have her turn signal on, and I just don't recall any proof on that point. .... Frankly, counsel, I've looked this over, and I think that I did make a mistake in submitting the contributory negligence[.] These observations by the trial court were correct. Based on the record, it is clear there was no competent evidence indicating Jean failed to signal. Therefore, it was improper to instruct the jury on her alleged contributory negligence.