Opinion ID: 2056288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: negligence of long

Text: Moser's issues I. and IL will be considered under this section. Moser alleges that Long was, as a matter of law, not negligent and that the trial court erred in allowing the question to go to the jury. We have often said in the past that issues of negligence, proximate cause, and contributory negligence ordinarily are questions of fact for the trier of fact unless the evidence is such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion ... Bauer v. Grauer, 266 N.W.2d 88, 93 (N.D.1978). Moser advances the theory that Long should be able to proceed on a through street with no obligation to watch for vehicles which may fail to stop or to yield the right-of-way. A we said in Anderson v. Schreiner, 94 N.W.2d 294 (N.D.1959): A driver upon an arterial or through highway does not have an exclusive privilege which would require those crossing it to do so at their own risk .... He must look for other vehicles approaching upon an intersecting highway and his lookout must be such that he will see what a person in the exercise of ordinary care would have seen in like circumstances. 94 N.W.2d at 298. In Anderson, we found the plaintiff to be negligent as a matter of law when the facts indicated that the plaintiff would have had a clear view of the defendant's vehicle for more than 1200 feet before it reached the intersection had he looked. While we determined that the plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law for failing to keep a proper lookout, we held that whether the negligence was a proximate cause of the accident was a question for the jury. We said: Therefore it is reasonable to say that if a jury may find that the conduct of an observing driver, who was aware of an approaching car and the possible danger at an intersection, was reasonable in the circumstances, they may also find that the conduct of a non-observing driver, who was unaware of the danger, was reasonable in identical circumstances, even though his ignorance of possible danger was due to his own negligence. The ultimate jury question is whether the conduct of the driver on the arterial highway was reasonable in the light of what he saw or should have seen. Because of his qualified right to rely on his preferred status there is no inescapable inference that a driver upon an arterial highway, who hadn't looked for cars approaching on an intersecting highway would have behaved any differently if he had looked. It follows that whether his negligence in not looking was a proximate cause was a question for the jury. 94 N.W.2d 294, 299. This court has repeatedly held that a driver on a favored roadway must exercise due care and keep a proper lookout. Kelmis v. Cardinal Petroleum Company, 156 N.W.2d 710, 715 (N.D.1968); Gleson v. Thompson, 154 N.W.2d 780, 786 (N.D.1967); Kuntz v. Stelmachuk, 136 N.W.2d 810, 816 (N.D. 1965); Anderson v. Schreiner, supra, 94 N.W.2d at 298. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury determination that Long was 10 percent negligent was supported by the evidence. Gleson v. Thompson, supra, 154 N.W.2d at 786-87. The evidence revealed that Mrs. Long did not see the Wilhelm vehicle until impact. The jury could have found that she failed to maintain a proper lookout. The evidence also showed that Long had a tendency to slow down at every intersection. Wilhelm stated she believed Long was slowing down to yield right-of-way to her. The jury could have found such action to be a lack of due care under the circumstances of this case in which it appears that Wilhelm was unfamiliar with Bismarck, believed she was on a through street, that there was evidence that the stop sign was partially obstructed, and there was testimony that it was raining and misting. The evidence was sufficient to submit the question of Long's negligence to the jury and it was not error for the court to deny a new trial to Moser on this basis.