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

Heading: The Duty of Care in Approaching the Intersection.

Text: The plaintiffs requested, but the court refused to give, the following proposed Instruction 9: A driver operating a vehicle must have it under control and shall reduce its speed to a reasonable and proper rate when approaching and traveling through a crossing or intersection of streets. A violation of this law is negligence. We have held that this instruction, which incorporates Iowa Code section 321.288 (1991), is not required if the driver was approaching a protected intersection, as in this case. Wilson, 163 N.W.2d at 371. See also Pitz v. Cedar Valley Egg & Poultry Co., 203 N.W.2d 548, 550-51 (Iowa 1973); Paulsen v. Haker, 250 Iowa 532, 537, 95 N.W.2d 47, 51-52 (1959). As we said in Wilson : The instruction requested by defendant[, incorporating section 321.288,] is given in intersection cases where neither through highways nor stop signs are involved. We have never held it essential to instruct under section 321.288 in relation to the duty of a driver on the favored right of way. Blashfield, Automobile Law and Practice, section 114.93, pp. 201-02, states in part: Ordinarily the motorist having the right of way is not negligent in failing to slow down or stop at an intersection, even if traffic is observed approaching from the inferior street. Moreover, a motorist on a favored road is not required to drive so that he can make a full stop at each intersection, and he is only required to proceed with such care and with his automobile under such control as existing conditions, known or which should be known to him, may require. Wilson, 163 N.W.2d at 372. As we said in Matuska v. Bryant, 260 Iowa 726, 150 N.W.2d 716 (1967): In the exercise of ordinary care under the circumstances there is no duty to immediately discover a motorist approaching a protected intersection or to anticipate that one will not be accorded the right-of-way.... [One] is only required to proceed with such care ... as existing conditions... require. Id. at 733-34, 150 N.W.2d at 720-21 (citations omitted). A motorist traveling a protected roadway does not have a duty to decrease speed at an intersection unless it appears that another person has proceeded onto the protected roadway. In that case, [t]he negligence of a driver on the favored road in such circumstances involves lookout, control and speed. But the speed concepts are controlled by the situation developed after the favored driver knows, or should know, the inferior driver is not going to obey the law. Wilson, 163 N.W.2d at 371. In four separate instructions, the court stated the general law with respect to control, the duty to drive with due regard for all existing conditions, and the duty to drive at a speed reasonable and proper under the circumstances. It was not obliged to also give the plaintiffs' requested Instruction 9, which deals with unprotected intersections.