Opinion ID: 1362157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Negligence of Defendants

Text: We find ample evidence in the record from which the jury could infer negligence on the part of Harris and  if it had been properly instructed  it might have found him liable to plaintiff Patricia Edwards. Also, defendant-Rice by virtue of being stopped or virtually stopped in her lane of traffic, under circumstances which could be considered the result of negligence, might have been found liable to Patricia Edwards, if the jury had been properly instructed. This defendant claims that upon seeing the Harris truck she stopped or slowed to about two to five miles per hour when opposite the truck; that the motor of her car died and she was in the act of attempting to start it when the accident occurred; and that as she stopped, or while passing very slowly, the vehicle driven by Seilaff came up behind the Harris truck and came to a stop. According to the investigating patrolman, Mrs. Rice had passed the Harris truck so that the rear of her vehicle was eleven feet beyond the rear of the Harris truck when it was struck. Mrs. Rice maintained her lights were on and properly functioning, but plaintiff Alva Edwards testified he saw no lights on the Rice vehicle and believed it had no tail lights on. Mrs. Rice testified she used the brakes hard on her car and slowed to see if the Seilaff vehicle could stop or if it would turn out for the Harris truck; and when it was apparent the other vehicle would stop she attempted to go on, without stopping, but her motor died. Whether she was negligent in her operation and thereby permitted her automobile to stall; whether she had intentionally stopped or slowed excessively; and whether she turned her lights off while attempting to start her motor were all questions for the jury. All witnesses agree the night was very cold, with subzero weather. Concerning defendant-Seilaff, he is charged with having failed to use a distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed that the glaring rays were not projected into the eyes of an oncoming driver, contrary to § 31-190, W.S. 1957. Edwards testified repeatedly that the Seilaff lights were on bright; that Seilaff had just not dimmed his lights; and that Edwards was blinded by the Seilaff lights. Although the Seilaff pickup was behind the Harris truck, Edwards by oral testimony and by drawing on a map placed the Seilaff vehicle to the left and closer to the center of the highway than the Harris truck. Generally, Edwards referred to the Seilaff lights as being silhouetted around the Harris truck, but he insisted consistently that the beam from the left light hit him and blinded him for quite some distance. He marked on the map where this blinding began and where it ended. He referred to the ending as the point where he broke through the beam. At that point he was within 40 feet of the Rice vehicle and saw it for the first time. In testifying about the Seilaff vehicle being to the left of the Harris truck so that its left light hit him, Edwards said it appeared that Seilaff drove into a position to go on around when the way to do so was clear. Seilaff himself frankly admitted he did not remember whether he had dimmed his lights. His wife testified she saw him dim. Also, Mrs. Rice said the Seilaff lights did not bother her, but she did not know whether he dimmed. However, since she claimed Seilaff drove up and came to a stop while she was almost stopping, it would be understandable that the Harris truck could have served as a barrier against the Seilaff lights, as Mrs. Rice approached  Seilaff not yet being in his final position where he readied himself to go around the Harris vehicle on the left. In any event, there is a conflict in the evidence on the question as to whether Seilaff did or did not dim his lights, and the matter becomes a jury question. The jury could, if it chose to do so, infer from the evidence adduced that Seilaff failed to use a distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed that the glaring rays were not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver, Edwards. Failure to dim would have been in violation of § 31-190 and sufficient to constitute negligence on the part of Seilaff.