Opinion ID: 1249921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Stop Sign Instruction

Text: The trial court instructed the jury: (5) Highway protected by `STOP' Sign. If a through highway is protected by a `STOP' sign, it is the duty of the driver approaching the highway from an intersecting highway to stop at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway. After coming to a full stop and looking both to the right and to the left, he may then, in the exercise of ordinary care, proceed into the intersection. If a vehicle approaching on the protected highway is so near to the intersection as to constitute an apparent and immediate hazard, it is the duty of the driver of the stopped vehicle to wait until the other vehicle has passed. He may enter the intersection only if a prudent person would have reasonable ground to believe that the other vehicle proceeding at a lawful rate of speed is so far distant from the intersection that he could safely proceed in advance of the other vehicle. The instruction, which is drawn from a pattern instruction, N.D.J.I. 207, had been requested by counsel for all the parties. Counsel for the plaintiffs, however, withdrew his request for that instruction before the trial commenced. Before the trial court instructed the jury, counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the last sentence of the instruction. Counsel for the Moose Lodge agreed that the phrase `proceeding at a lawful rate of speed' is an incorrect statement of the law since the adoption of comparative negligence. Counsel for Scott and Nemont did not further address the matter. The plaintiffs argue that the instruction's last sentence suggests that the person at the stop sign owes no duty to a person traveling at an unlawful rate of speed and contend that a person at a stop sign must heed any car traveling on the favored throughway, whether or not it is traveling at a lawful rate of speed. Scott and Nemont argue only that there is nothing wrong with this instruction and it is the only appropriate instruction to give. It constitutes negligence for the unprivileged driver to fail to stop for the stop sign or to stop in a perfunctory manner and fail to yield the right of way to the favored motorist. Even if he stopped for a stop sign, it is negligence to proceed across a through highway into the path of an oncoming vehicle when it is obvious that the crossing cannot be made safely, or to proceed without looking and determining that there was no traffic approaching.       The fact that the automobile on the arterial highway was known to be traveling at a fast rate of speed, intensifies rather than diminishes the duty to give it the right of way. [Footnotes omitted.] L. Schwartz, Trial of Automobile Accident Cases § 31.05 (3d Ed.1985). We have held that an automobile driver has a duty to take every reasonable precaution to avoid a collision with another automobile even if such automobile is violating the rules of the road. Thompson v. Nettum, 163 N.W.2d 91, 101 (N.D.1968). The greater the speed with which a vehicle is approaching, the more immediate the hazard it poses. We conclude that inclusion of the words, proceeding at a lawful rate of speed, in the stop sign instruction constituted error. Our conclusion is consonant with § 39-10-24(2), N.D.C.C., which provides:  39-10-24. Stop signs and yield signs.       2. Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, or, if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering it. After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways.