Opinion ID: 2196682
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Assured-Clear-Distance Instruction.

Text: Shams contends the trial court should have instructed the jury that [n]o person shall drive any vehicle on a street at a speed greater than will permit them to stop within the assured clear distance ahead. The words within the assured clear distance ahead mean the distance from which noticeable objects, reasonably expected or anticipated to be upon the highway, may be seen. A violation of this law is negligence. This instruction is based on Iowa Code section 321.285. In Coppola v. Jameson, 200 N.W.2d 877, 880 (Iowa 1972), we set out a three-part test for determining when to give this instruction: [A] jury question on the issue exists where there is substantial evidence: (1) That the object with which the operator collided was located ahead of him in his lane of travel; (2) That such object was reasonably discernible; and (3) That the object was (a) static or stationary, (b) moving ahead of him in the same direction as such operator, or (c) came into his lane of travel within the assured clear distance ahead at a point sufficiently distant ahead of him to have made it possible to bring his vehicle to a stop and avoid a collision. Id. (quoting Cerny v. Domer, 13 Ohio St.2d 117, 123-24, 235 N.E.2d 132, 137 (1968)). Under section (2) of the Coppola test, there is a question whether Shams was reasonably discernible. The collision occurred one-half hour after sunset, Shams was wearing very dark clothing, and neither Shams nor Carney saw the other until Shams was a few feet in front of Carney's vehicle. Another witness confirmed that. Shams also fails section 3 of the Coppola test because he did not [come] into [Carney's] lane of travel within the assured clear distance ahead at a point sufficiently distant ahead of him to have made it possible to bring his vehicle to a stop and avoid a collision. Coppola, 200 N.W.2d at 880. [A] sudden and unexpected entry of a person, motor vehicle, or other object into the path of travel will take the case out of the assured clear distance statute or rule. Vanderheiden v. Clearfield Truck Rentals, Inc., 210 N.W.2d 527, 531 (Iowa 1973) (quoting 60A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 293(2)(b), 208-09 (1969)); accord Nolte v. Case, 221 N.W.2d 741, 747 (Iowa 1974); see also Wright v. Welter, 288 N.W.2d 553, 556 (Iowa 1980) (plaintiff did not enter defendant's line of travel within the assured clear distance where plaintiff stood stationary at the centerline of the road approximately 300 feet in front of defendant, then proceeded to walk into defendant's lane of travel). Under the facts of this case, it was not error for the district court to deny the assured-clear-distance instruction.