Opinion ID: 1125584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Refusal to Instruct on Duty to Yield.

Text: The trial court gave Wong's requested instruction No. 43: [1] Section VIII 2(d) of the Traffic Code of the City and County of Honolulu: Vehicles intending to turn left from a divided highway, exit [from] which is made by means of a left turn decelerating lane constructed in the median strip area, shall enter the decelerating lane and shall come to a full stop before proceeding with caution across the intersection and into the intersecting roadway unless otherwise instructed by official signs and pavement markings. The trial court refused to give Wong's requested instructions Nos. 13 and 14. No. 13 and the first half of No. 14 were properly refused as they were factually inapplicable. The second part of No. 14 states: Section XI. Right of Way       3. Vehicle entering through street or stop intersection.       b. The driver of a vehicle shall likewise stop in obedience to a stop sign as required herein at an intersection where a stop sign is erected at one or more entrances thereto although not a part of a through street and shall proceed cautiously, yielding to vehicles not so obliged to stop which are within the intersection or approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, but may then proceed. Higa argues that this instruction was properly refused because this was not an intersection within the meaning of Honolulu Traffic Code § 15-2.23(10). [2] We cannot agree with such a narrow construction of the language of this section. Clearly this was a channelized intersection within the definition of Section II.10(k) (1956), [3] and clearly too, channelized intersections are a kind of intersection. Wong argues that No. 43 does not adequately cover the duty of defendant Higa, after stopping, to yield the right-of-way to Wong's vehicle, [4] which was not so obliged to stop and was approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard. Higa argues that the substance of defendants' No. 14 was covered by defendants' No. 43. No. 43 merely requires that after stopping, the bus proceed with caution across the intersection   . No. 14(b) was repetitious insofar as it requires stopping and caution, but it additionally requires yielding to vehicles not so obliged to stop which are    approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard   . No. 14(b) was clearly more specific than No. 43. It affirmatively states that the bus driver had a duty, after stopping, to yield to vehicles not so obliged to stop which are    approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard   . This additional requirement is not reasonably implicit in the requirement of caution stated in No. 43. It was reversible error to refuse No. 14(b) under either view in Young v. Price, 50 Haw. 430, 439, 450, 442 P.2d 67, 73, 79 (1968).