Opinion ID: 1841473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Standard of Care Applicable to Freeman/Long

Text: Having decided that Kirk Harrison Stong met his demise outside a business district, we confront two safety standards to which Freeman and Long were subject. First, Long was required to pull off the road to the extent practicable. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-3-903(1) (1972); 49 C.F.R. § 392.21 (1983). Second, Long was required with reasonable promptness to put in place reflectors or other signals designed to warn approaching vehicles. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-7-71(1) (1972); 49 C.F.R. § 392.22(b) (1983). There are state and federal counterparts for each standard. The reasons why these statutes furnish our standard of care are familiar. See Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 286 (1965) (reasonable man standard may be defined by legislation); see also Georgia Pacific Corporation v. Armstrong, 451 So.2d 201 (Miss., 1984); Haver v. Hinson, 385 So.2d 605, 608 (Miss. 1980) (statutes delineate what is negligent conduct); Munford, Inc. v. Peterson, 368 So.2d 213, 217 (Miss. 1979) (same); Powers v. Malley, 302 So.2d 262, 264-65 (Miss. 1974) (same); and, most important, U-Haul Co. v. White, 232 So.2d 705, 708 (Miss. 1970) (same). Sections 63-3-903 and 63-7-71 were enacted by our legislature to protect motorists on our highways. They made unlawful conduct found to have been the frequent cause of accidents and were designed to deter that conduct. [7] In sum, these statutes were intended to safeguard life and limb. Kirk Harrison Stong, were he drunk or were he sober on July 4, 1980, was within the scope of the intended protections of these statutes. [8] The same may be said of the federal regulations. Freeman Truck Lines is a certificated common carrier subject to federal regulation. The Federal Highway Administration and its predecessor in authority, acting well within the scope of the authority vested in them by the Congress, have promulgated a series of highway safety regulations, among which are 49 C.F.R. §§ 392.21-392.22. By their terms these regulations apply to this case. They, too, furnish standards of care by which Long's conduct must be judged. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286 (1965) (reasonable man standard may be defined by administrative regulations); Brandes v. Burbank, 613 F.2d 658, 664-65 (7th Cir.1980) (reasonable man standard defined by reference to federal highway safety regulations); NeSmith v. Bowden, 17 Wash. App. 602, 607-08, 563 P.2d 1322, 1325-1326 (1977) (same).

Considering the state standard first, we find that § 63-3-903 provides as follows: (1) No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or improved or main traveled part of any highway outside of a business or residence district when it is practical to stop, park, or so leave such vehicle off such part of said highway... . The effect of the statute is to provide that no person shall stop his motor vehicle on the main traveled part of the highway when it is practical to stop off the highway. See Whitten v. Land, 188 So.2d 246, 249 (Miss. 1966) (these phrases in the statute pose a question of fact); Hankins v. Harvey, 248 Miss. 639, 657-59, 160 So.2d 63, 70-71 (1964) (same); Gulf Refining Co. v. Brown, 196 Miss. 131, 146-47, 16 So.2d 765, 767 (1944) (same). Our question is whether it was reasonably practical for Long to pull his truck off of the main traveled right hand or westerly land of I-55, not whether it was merely possible for him to have done so. This question is ordinarily one of fact to be submitted to the jury on proper instructions. Compare Maness v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 271 So.2d 418, 425-26 (Miss. 1972) (issue is a jury question); Hankins v. Harvey, 248 Miss. at 656-59, 160 So.2d at 69-71 (same); with Gulf Refining Co. v. Brown, 196 Miss. at 144, 16 So.2d at 767 (trial judge warranted in finding violation). We may take such issues from the jury only where, under our familiar test, the facts are so clear that reasonable minds could not differ. See, e.g., City of Jackson v. Locklar, 431 So.2d 475, 478-79 (Miss. 1983) (standard for removing issues from the jury); Paymaster Oil Co. v. Mitchell, 319 So.2d 652, 656-57 (Miss. 1975) (same); General Tire and Rubber Co. v. Darnell, 221 So.2d 104, 105-07 (Miss. 1969) (same). Yet, this is precisely what Appellant Administratrix would have us do. She argues that there is no credible evidence in the record contradicting her evidence which, indeed, does suggest that it would have been practical for Long to have pulled his truck entirely on to the shoulder of I-55 and out of the main-traveled lane of traffic. Appellant Administratrix would have us hold that the only circumstance relevant to the practicality issue is whether there was physically enough room to the side of the highway to get the truck safely off the main-traveled lane. Admittedly there was here a shoulder to the west of Long's truck of adequate contour and width. We do not read the statute so narrowly. To be sure the physical makeup of the premises is an important factor relevant to practicality. Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, 195 Miss. 226, 249, 12 So.2d 784, 786 (1943). By no means is it the only factor that may ever be relevant. Freeman and Long argue that it would not have been practical for Long to pull off the main traveled right-hand lane of I-55 and allow a stalled, abandoned, unlit vehicle to remain. This is especially so when it is remembered that the abandoned vehicle had already caused one driver to lose control of his car in an attempt to avoid a collision. The evidence favorable to Freeman and Long suggests that the rear of the Freeman truck had reflectors that could be seen from a distance. In addition, Long activated his red emergency flashers. According to one witness, these could be seen as far as a mile back up the highway. Long's temporary actions arguably improved the safety of the scene vis-a-vis southbound oncoming traffic. We say temporary because at the time the fatal accident occurred Long's plan to improve further the safety of the scene was in the process of implementation; the police officer was speeding down the frontage road so that he could position his car, his blue flashers activated, above the Freeman truck to warn approaching motorists of the danger. In this context we cannot  and will not  say as a matter of law that it was not practical for Long to position his truck as he did. By the same token we do not imply that Long's conduct was immune from criticism. We hold that on this record a jury issue was presented. Appellant Administratrix was not entitled to a peremptory instruction on the practicality issue based on the state statute.
The federal regulation is similar but not identical. It provides, in 49 C.F.R. § 392.21, that No motor vehicle shall be stopped, parked, or left standing, whether attended or unattended, upon the traveled portion of any highway outside of a business or residential district, when it is practicable to stop, park, or leave such vehicle off the traveled portion of the highway. Here as elsewhere in this opinion we must keep in mind the clearly stated federal policy: the Federal Highway Administration's regulations in no way displace state law unless they impose a higher standard of care than that law. 49 C.F.R. § 392.2. Otherwise federal regulations require that Every motor vehicle must be operated in accordance with the laws, ordinances and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated. 49 C.F.R. § 392.2. The question before us is whether § 392.21 of the federal regulations imposes a higher standard of care than Mississippi's § 63-3-903. We have carefully studied and compared the two. Though slightly different wording is employed, we regard that they impose a legally identical standard of care upon Freeman/Long. Federal Regulation § 392.21, like Mississippi's § 63-3-903, applies only outside a business or residential district. Indeed, the first sentence of federal § 392.21 is virtually identical to the first sentence of state § 63-3-903(1). The federal regulation uses the word practicable in place of the state statute's practical. The sixth definition of practical, in Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1780 (1971), is practicable. Though there are differences between the two words, the draftsmen of statutes and regulations can hardly be held to know them, nor judges to pay them any mind, when the meaning intended in one instance is so obviously the same as in the other. Predicating Appellant Administratrix' claim that Long was negligent in failing to pull off the road upon 49 C.F.R. § 392.21 adds nothing to the claim already asserted based on § 63-3-903(1). Technically, of course, she was entitled to have that claim submitted to the jury. See Whitfield Tank Lines v. Navajo Freight Lines, 90 N.M. App. 454, 458, 564 P.2d 1336, 1340 (1977) (party entitled to instruction on a theory of violation of federal highway safety regulations if pled and supported by evidence). As a practical matter, artfully drafted jury instructions covering the state § 63-3-903(1) claim would be sufficient to cover the claim based on the federal regulations. [9] Having held that a jury question was presented under state § 63-3-903(1), we hold likewise under the federal regulation. Appellant Administratrix was not entitled to a peremptory instruction on the breach of duty issue here.
There are state and federal components to Appellant Administratrix's next claim. For comparison we juxtapose the salient provisions of federal § 392.22 with state § 63-7-71. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-7-71(1) (1972) in relevant part reads as follows: (1) Whenever any motor truck or bus is stopped upon the highway ..., the driver or other person in charge of such vehicle shall cause such flares, fuses, reflectors, or other signals to be lighted or otherwise placed in an operating condition and placed upon the highway, one at a distance of approximately one hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle, one approximately one hundred feet in advance of the vehicle and the third upon the roadway side of the vehicle... . The situation presented by the federal regulation covering the placement of warning devices is similar, although the more recently drafted federal regulation makes provision for multi-lane divided highways such as is involved here. The regulation provides, in 49 C.F.R. § 392.22(b), as follows: (b) Placement of Warning Devices  (1) General Rule. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, whenever a vehicle is stopped upon the traveled portion of a highway or the shoulder of a highway for any cause other than necessary traffic stops, the driver shall as soon as possible, but in any event within 10 minutes, place ... warning devices... . (2)(v) Divided or one-way roads. If a motor vehicle is stopped upon the traveled portion or the shoulder of a divided or one-way highway, the driver shall place the warning devices required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, one warning device at a distance of 200 feet and one warning device at a distance of 100 feet in a direction toward approaching traffic in the center of the lane or shoulder occupied by the vehicle. He shall place one warning device at the traffic side of the vehicle within 10 feet of the rear of the vehicle. Under either the state or the federal standard, because Long stopped his truck on a highway outside of a business district, he was required to put out reflectors or other signals. [10] Both the state statute and the federal regulation require the placement of three devices. One flashing blue lighted patrol car will suffice generically but not numerically. On these facts Long did not comply with the state and federal standards for placing three devices by the time the accident occurred, or more precisely, at the time of the accident Long had not yet complied. This does not mean, however, that Long was necessarily liable under either standard. [11] Under the state statute, a driver is not required to place flares, reflectors or other signals immediately. Hankins v. Harvey holds immediately means only that it be put out with reasonable and proper diligence, or promptly under all the facts and circumstances of the case. 160 So.2d at 69. There is a surface difference between the state statute and the federal regulation in the language describing the amount of time Long had to effect his warning light system. Whereas Mississippi's § 63-7-71(1) has been construed by this Court to require reasonable promptness and diligence under the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the federal regulation § 392.22(b)(1) requires that the driver shall act as soon as possible, but in any event within 10 minutes, ... We regard the state statute and the federal regulation as imposing essentially similar standards. Normally the reasonable promptness and diligence required by the state statute will require action in ten minutes. In any event, under the facts in this case, the witnesses have established a range of time between the moment Long stopped his truck until the fatal accident at between four and ten minutes. The evidence is certainly not so clear that we have an unquestionable violation of the time feature of either the federal regulation or the state statute. Where there is a conflict in the evidence and where more than one reasonable interpretation may be given the facts, whether the driver acted with reasonable promptness under the circumstances or within a ten minute time limit must be determined by the jury under proper instructions. See, e.g., Powers v. Malley, 302 So.2d 262, 264-65 (Miss. 1974) (issue should have been submitted to jury on proper instructions); Maness v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 271 So.2d 418, 425 (Miss. 1972) (issue is a jury question); Hankins v. Harvey, 248 Miss. 639, 656, 160 So.2d 63, 69 (1964) (same) (minority position of Kyle, J.); Planters Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Kincade, 210 Miss. 712, 717, 720-23, 50 So.2d 578, 581, 585 (1951) (same). Even though Long had not yet complied with the state or federal standard by placing three devices to warn oncoming traffic, we can only hold that reasonable minds could differ on whether Long acted with the required promptness and diligence. Unless on uncontradicted facts Long's ten minutes or his time for acting with reasonable promptness had expired, we do not reach the question whether he violated the numerical component of the requirement for putting out warning devices. Appellant Administratrix is not entitled to a peremptory instruction that Long violated either the state or federal traffic laws.
Administratrix' point under this assignment of error, however, is not wholly without merit. She argues alternatively that violation of the statutory standards, if she could convince the jury that such occurred, was negligence per se and not mere evidence of negligence. In this she is correct. As we have explained above, however, she has waived the point. At the risk of repetition, this waiver occurred when Administratrix requested and was granted two negligence per se instructions, Nos. 37 and 38, and then failed to withdraw the two otherwise comparable mere evidence of negligence instructions, Nos. 11 and 13. See pages 701, 704 above. Administratrix' waiver in no way derives from her having requested the two alternative mere evidence of negligence instructions. This, it will be remembered, was done in the face of the trial judge's refusal to grant her original negligence per se instructions, Nos. 6, 9 and 10. Indeed, if the instruction conference had ended there, the submission of Nos. 11 and 13 to the jury would have constituted reversible error, for there is no question but that those two instructions contain an erroneous statement of the law on a material point. Our cases establish that, where a party requests a correct instruction only to have it refused by the trial judge, that party does not, by requesting another instruction bowing to the trial judge's ruling, waive the right to assign as error on appeal the refusal of the correct instruction. Home Insurance Company of New York v. Dahmer, 167 Miss. 893, 901, 150 So. 650, 652 (1933); Foster v. City of Meridian, 150 Miss. 715, 728, 116 So. 820, 823 (1928). At trial, an attorney on his oath is twice obligated. He must with warm zeal and all good fidelity advance the cause of his client. At the same time, he is expected to accept and respect rulings of the trial court once finally made. The tension in these two obligations is most felt by the lawyer when the trial judge rules against his client on a point where the lawyer's experience and knowledge inform him that the trial judge is wrong. When the trial judge makes a ruling adverse to a litigant, and where that litigant's lawyer has properly noted his objection, that litigant and his lawyer are entitled to try the rest of the case on the assumption that the trial judge's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. And, when that litigant reaches this Court we will not imply a waiver from the subsequent conduct which does nothing more than show the lawyer's obligatory respect for the trial judge while at the same time continuing as best can be done the advancement of his client's cause. We reaffirm this rule today for it is wholly consistent with what we hold here: that at the end of the instruction conference Administratrix requested and was granted two perfectly good negligence per se instructions [12] and that at that point she had the duty to withdraw Instruction Nos. 11 and 13, the alternative mere evidence of negligence instructions which had been granted at her drudging request earlier. It is her failure to withdraw Nos. 11 and 13 that works the waiver, not her having requested them in the first place.