Opinion ID: 1731541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We consider first the failure of the defendants to have put out flares on the highway.

Text: The primary instruction defined the duties of the defendants Wiseman Baking Company and Raiford as being not to stop the truck on the traveled portion of the highway or leave it standing there unless the truck had become disabled in such manner and to such extent that it was impracticable to move the same while waiting repair or sufficient help to move it, and the further duty to leave displayed on the rear of said truck a red light visible from the rear five hundred feet away under ordinary atmospheric conditions. This is in accord with KRS 189.450(1) (a). The court refused plaintiff's request to add the following provision to that instruction: If you shall believe that said truck and its lighting equipment were disabled, it was the duty of the driver of said truck to cause lighted flares, lanterns or other signals capable of continuously producing three warning lights, each visible for a distance of at least 500 feet in advance of the vehicle, one at a distance of approximately 100 feet to the rear of the vehicle and the third upon the roadway side of the vehicle. The statute, KRS 189.070(2), provides: Whenever any motor truck and its lighting equipment are disabled during the period when lighted lamps must be illuminated on vehicles and the truck cannot immediately be removed from the main traveled portion of a highway outside of a business or residence district, the person in charge of the vehicle shall cause the flares, lanterns or other signals to be lighted and placed upon the highway, one at a distance of approximately one hundred feet in advance of the vehicle, one at a distance of approximately one hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle and the third upon the roadway side of the vehicle, except that if the vehicle is transporting flammables three red reflectors may be so placed in lieu of the other signals and no open burning flare shall be placed near the vehicle. Similar statutes of other states make the duty to put out flares absolute when a motor vehicle has been parked or stopped on the traveled portion of the highway at nighttime. 60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 335d. See Annotation, 67 A.L.R.2d 12. It is to be noted that our statute requires such action whenever any motor truck and its lighting equipment are disabled. (Emphasis added.) The rejection of the offered instruction on the duty of the defendants to cause flares, lanterns or other signals to be lighted and placed upon the highway was doubtless because of absence of evidence that the lighting equipment of the vehicle was disabled. It was admitted that the motor truck was disabled and could not be immediately removed from the main traveled portion of the highway. We have heretofore construed the statute, KRS 189.070(2) literally, and said that an instruction on the duty declared therein was not required where the lights of the vehicle were not disabled, even though the truck was stalled because of mechanical difficulty. Basham's Adm'x v. Witt, 289 Ky. 639, 159 S.W.2d 990; Branch v. Whitaker, Ky., 294 S.W.2d 948. In other cases we have held it to be for the jury to determine whether the exigencies of the particular condition required the operator of the vehicle to use flares as emergency warnings. Harry Holder Motor Co. v. Davidson, Ky., 243 S.W.2d 926; Smith v. Collins, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 38; Branch v. Whitaker, supra, Ky., 294 S.W.2d 948. Some of these cases appear to have regarded slight evidence tending to show disablement of the lighting equipment as justifying the instruction. Upon further and mature consideration, we are impelled to the view that our literal construction of the statute does not conform to its purpose or the legislative intent to promote highway safety and to protect the traveling public from the hazardous situation of a big motor vehicle stalled on the main traveled portion of a highway in the nighttime by providing special and specific warning signals in addition to the lights displayed on the vehicle. These signals also give warning that the vehicle is stationary. Such literal interpretation of the statute permits the operator of a truck stalled because of mechanical disablement to switch off the lights and let it stay on the road in the dark, and yet be under no obligation to warn the traveling public with flares or similar signals just because the lighting equipment was not out of order. Vice versa, the truck could be left standing in a traffic lane even though it was not disabled if its lighting equipment was out of order, and the operator would be excused by the law. Our previous construction of the statute defies reconciliation with the obvious purpose of the statute. There should be a practical construction and application of its terms. True, the Legislature used the connective word and. But since the popular use of the words or and and is loose and frequently inaccurate, the courts may and should change and to or, and vice versa, whenever such conversion is required, inter alia, to effectuate the obvious intention of the Legislature and to accomplish the purpose or object of the statute. James v. United States F. & G. Co., 133 Ky. 299, 117 S.W. 406; Commonwealth v. Bartholomew, 265 Ky. 703, 97 S.W.2d 591; Asher v. Stacy, 299 Ky. 476, 185 S.W.2d 958; Sutherland, Statutory Construction, (3d ed.), Vol. 2, § 4923; 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, § 282. We think there is reasonable justification to regard and as or in the statute under consideration in order to accomplish its purpose. This has the effect of requiring the display of flares or similar signals if either the vehicle or the lighting equipment is disabled. An Illinois statute construed in Wise v. Kuchne Mfg. Co., 322 Ill.App. 26, 53 N.E.2d 711, 714, like our Kentucky statute, required the display of flares whenever a motor vehicle and its lighting equipment were disabled. A trailer-truck was stopped on the highway because of mechanical trouble. Its body was illuminated, like the defendants claim the machine in this case was, and there was conflict in the evidence as to whether or not warning flares had been put out. In response to the contention of the appellants (defendants below) that before the statute applied and they would be obliged to put out flares, the truck must have been disabled mechanically and its lighting equipment have been inoperative, the court said: If this were true, a truck could be stopped on a highway with no lights whatsoever, and if the truck were not mechanically disabled, there would be no duty under the foregoing statute to warn the travelling public with lighted flares. We are of the opinion that this being a remedial statute, it was the intention of the legislature that in either the event of the truck being without lights or it being stalled on the highway because of mechanical disability, it is the duty of the driver of the truck to use flares as outlined in the statute. Any other construction would be unreasonable. Rosenthal v. Prussing, 108 Ill. 128; People v. Trustees, 322 Ill. 120, 124, 152 N.E. 555. We are in accord with that view of our statute. Our previous construction of the statute, KRS 189.070(2), in conflict is overruled. Our statute, quoted above, merely requires that the flares or similar warning signals be placed upon the highway at the places described. It has usually been recognized in the construction of like statutes  even though they may provide for immediate placement  that the driver is afforded a reasonable time to comply. But in construing reasonableness the courts have been somewhat strict, the tendency apparently being to require the flares to be placed within a very few minutes in the absence of circumstances excusing a longer delay. Numerous cases to this effect are summarized in Notes, 67 A.L.R.2d 48. We think that placing the flares should be done with reasonable promptness. With that criterion, we examine the evidence on the point. There was evidence in behalf of the plaintiff that the truck had been stalled on the highway about an hour, and that the men on the truck had said they had had to go to a certain store to get kerosene for the flares. On the contrary, there was evidence that only fifteen or twenty minutes had elapsed and the errand to get kerosene was made not before but after the accident. But the defendants' own evidence showed that enough time had elapsed for Murray to have driven some distance ahead before he discovered the truck was not following and turned around and driven back to the stalled truck and become engaged in connecting up the batteries. There were two men with the truck. One of them had had time to walk about 100 yards east and set out a flare and walk back to the truck and set about preparing another flare to be placed west, or back of the truck, when the accident happened. It seems to us that as a matter of common prudence and ordinary reasoning, the first flare should have been placed back of the truck to warn approaching motorists that the south lane, in which they were traveling, was blocked, instead of ahead as a warning to motorists in the north lane. Apparently one of the men on the truck did nothing toward putting out flares. Reasonable promptness was not shown. It has been frequently held that a violation of similar statutes is negligence per se. Note, 67 A.L.R.2d 21. In Burns v. Fisher, 132 Mont. 26, 313 P.2d 1044, 67 A.L.R.2d 1, the driver of a truck who had not put out flares as required by the statute was killed when his stalled truck (in which he was sitting) was run into by the defendant's truck. He was held to have been guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. We are of opinion that the defendant company and its driver, Raiford, were negligent as a matter of law. Concerning the passenger car. The driver, Murray, was negligent per se in parking it in the middle of the highway with glaring headlights blinding approaching motorists. Wilson v. Dalton's Adm'r, 311 Ky. 285, 223 S.W.2d 978. That the lights did blind the plaintiff is not contradicted by either positive or inferential evidence. Likewise, there is no contradiction that because of those lights he could not see the parked truck in his lane of travel sooner than he says he did. The evidence shows the joint and concurring negligence was responsible for the extremely hazardous situation by violations of both statutory and common law. Of course, this is imputed to the corporate defendant. If the evidence is substantially the same on another trial, the court should instruct the jury to find for the plaintiff unless they should believe he was contributorily negligent.