Opinion ID: 1857192
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Instruction on Contributory Negligence.

Text: Over timely objection by plaintiff, the trial court gave an instruction on contributory negligence which included the following: Defendant Koos asserts that the plaintiff was negligent in one or more of the following particulars: 1. . . . 2. . . . 3. In failing to yield the right of way to the snowmobile approaching from the right. . . . . Where two snowmobiles are approaching each other on streets or roads which intersect at or nearly at right angles, the vehicle approaching the other from the right shall have the right of way. In the instant case, no such designated paths or avenues of travel existed, so as to set forth predesignated courses of travel for the snowmobiles here in question. The above rule of law is applicable to snowmobiles traveling in a free travel area, such as a lake here involved, but only if the jury first finds factually that the vehicles were approaching each other at or nearly at a right angle, so as to bring this rule of law into play. If the jury finds that their paths, immediately before the collision, were not traversing at or nearly at a right angle to each other, then there is no duty to yield by the vehicle approaching from the left. Conversely, if the vehicles are approaching each other at or nearly at a right angle, then the rule applies and the vehicle approaching from the right has the right of way. This means that where snowmobiles are approaching each other at such speed and so nearly the same time that if both proceed without regard to the other, collision is reasonably to be expected, the driver of the snowmobile approaching from the left is required to yield to the snowmobile approaching from the right. Failure by an operator of a snowmobile to comply with this provision would constitute negligence. (Emphasis added). Plaintiff says that this instruction erroneously establishes a rule of negligence per se, a doctrine limited to cases in which there is a violation of statute or ordinance creating a particular standard of care. Jorgensen v. Horton, 206 N.W.2d 100, 102 (Iowa 1973); Kisling v. Thierman, 214 Iowa 911, 915, 243 N.W. 552, 554 (1932). We agree. As applicable here, section 321G.13, The Code 1973, fixes the statutory standard for the operation of snowmobiles. It provides in pertinent part: It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any snowmobile: 1. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all existing circumstances. 2. In a careless, reckless, or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto. 3. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or habit-forming drugs. 4. Without a lighted headlight and taillight when required for safety. We point out there is no right-of-way provision in this statute. Nevertheless the trial court instructed as though there were one. We hold this was error on two grounds. First, the court erred in judicially establishing an intersection, after first recognizing there was no intersection on the frozen lake where this accident occurred. Secondly, the trial court erred in making a violation of the rule thus fashioned negligence per se, just as though it were a violation of section 321.319, The Code. Defendant cites Hinegardner v. Dickey's Potato Chip Company, Inc., 205 So.2d 157 (La.App.1967) cert. denied, 251 La. 746, 206 So.2d 94 (1968), and Kern v. Autman, 54 Del. 402, 177 A.2d 525 (Del.Super.Ct.1961), as support for the instruction, but these cases are distinguishable. They both involved motor vehicle accidents which occurred in private parking lots with marked traffic lanes. Furthermore in each case the court used statutory rules of the road merely as a guide to help the jury decide the question of negligence. Neither case characterized the offending conduct as negligence per se. Hinegardner, 205 So.2d at 162, Kern, 54 Del. at 406, 177 A.2d at 527. The trial court should have instructed on the grounds of negligence alleged in the petition and supported by the evidence, permitting the jury to decide if plaintiff's conduct was in fact negligent.