Opinion ID: 2570091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: underlying facts and jury trial

Text: On September 17, 2002, Bradley Deal was traveling eastbound on Main Street in Council Grove at approximately 5:50 p.m. Alan Bowman, who was traveling south on Adams Street, approached the intersection of Main and Adams. The traffic traveling on Main Street was not required to stop at this intersection, but vehicles on Adams Street had stop signs. After stopping and looking both directions, Bowman pulled into the intersection, where he collided with Deal's vehicle, injuring Deal. Deal filed a negligence action against Bowman. Both parties agreed that Deal bore no fault for the accident. The questions to be determined at trial were whether Bowman was at fault and, if so, what damages should be awarded. Because Deal had no recollection of the accident due to his injuries, Bowman provided the only testimony as to how the accident happened. Bowman testified that he came to a complete stop at the stop sign and looked both directions. He then pulled into the intersection and collided with Deal's vehicle, injuring Deal. Bowman testified that he did not see Deal's car because the sun hindered his vision when he looked west. On direct examination, the following exchange took place between Bowman and his attorney: Q. And whattell the jury what happened when you looked to the west? A. When I looked to the west, I did not see any vehicles at all. There was a pretty good glare from the sun that day, but I did not see any vehicles. Q. Officer Furman wrote that vehicle two, which was you, stopped at the stop sign and looked to the west, and he did not see vehicle one, the plaintiff, due to the sun blinding him, so he pulled out. Is that what you told the officer? A. Yes. Q. Is that what you're telling us today? A. Yes. Q. When you pulled out, you were aware that it was your obligation to look, to be careful? A. Yes. Q. And were you trying to do that? A. Yes. Deal's counsel conducted the following discussion with Bowman during cross-examination: Q. Well, you said that your vision was blocked to the west. At what point in time was it blocked to the west? A. I wouldn't necessarily say it was blocked, but I would say it was hindered by the sun. Q. Okay. And you knew it was hindered? A. Yes. Q. And you pulled out anyway? A. I very cautiously looked, then pulled out. Police Officer Tom Furman, who arrived at the scene of the accident shortly after it occurred and filed the police report on the incident, also testified. According to Furman, Bowman told the officer immediately after the accident occurred that he stopped at the stop sign and he looked, and due to the sun blinding him ... he did not see the vehicle coming. Furman also testified that when he looked to the west after Bowman had provided his explanation, the officer noticed that the sun was very blinding that day. At the close of evidence, Deal moved for a directed verdict i.e., for judgment as a matter of law, on the issue of Bowman's negligence/liability. The district court denied his motion, concluding that there was evidence that Bowman had stopped and had carefully looked both directions and that the only reason he did not see Deal was due to the sun. The case was given to the jury, which found that neither party was at fault for the accident. Deal moved for a new trial on the issue of negligence/liability, arguing that the evidence conclusively indicated that Bowman had been negligent. The court denied the motion, relying primarily on Diaz v. Duke, 206 Kan. 650, 652, 482 P.2d 48 (1971), where this court reversed a directed verdict on the issue of liability in a negligence action when it could have found that on account of being suddenly blinded by the sun, [the driver] did not negligently operate his automobile.