Opinion ID: 2241728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: appellant's instructions

Text: Nor was there any error in refusing appellant's requested instructions. Appellant's instructions No. 13 and No. 16 assumed there was evidence which would justify the jury in finding that the appellee was operating the car while sleeping and dozing. This contention has already been decided adversely to the appellant. Instruction No. 14 stated the duty of an operator of a motor vehicle to yield at least one-half of the main traveled portion of the roadway as nearly as possible. Instruction No. 26 is also on a failure to yield one-half of the main traveled portion of the highway. The refusal of these instructions was not error, since the court gave appellant's instructions No. 7 and No. 10 which adequately covered this issue. Instruction No. 15 stated that there was a duty to keep a reasonable lookout ahead for other traffic on the highway. The jury was adequately instructed on the duty to maintain a reasonable lookout when the court gave appellant's instruction No. 11. As before noted, nothing in this record would relieve either party from the duty to maintain a lookout immediately before and at the scene of the collision. Instruction No. 19 in substance told the jury that appellant's truck driver was not required to anticipate that the appellee would suddenly turn her vehicle to the left of the traveled portion of the highway or refuse to yield one-half of the highway, if she did. This subject matter was adequately covered by the appellant's instruction No. 17 given to  the jury, which stated that the driver of a motor vehicle was not required to anticipate that another approaching vehicle would be operated to the left of the center line when passing him, or fail to give one-half of the highway. Instruction No. 24 in substance states that under the law of this state there is no comparative negligence, or degrees of negligence. However, by appellant's instruction No. 23, the jury was advised that the negligence of both parties would bar recovery by either. It was not necessary to instruct on comparative negligence. Terre Haute, etc., Traction Co. v. Wolford (1918), 187 Ind. 91, 118 N.E. 564. Judgment affirmed. NOTE.  Reported in 94 N.E.2d 537.