Opinion ID: 1999761
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alternate route.

Text: At trial, the plaintiffs offered testimony that tended to prove Moths had an alternate route available. Plaintiffs attempted to give proof to show that it would have been safer for Moths to continue straight into the Birch Court cul-de-sac and complete his turn instead of attempting a Y turn. It is plaintiffs' contention that had Moths chosen the alternate route the accident would not have occurred. The trial court struck all evidence pertaining to an alternate route and instructed the jury that they were not to consider the presence of any alternate route. Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in failing to submit this issue to the jury. The law does not require a choice unerring in the light of after events; it requires such a choice as, under all the known or obvious circumstances, a reasonably prudent man might make. [2] Generally, one is negligent in selecting the more dangerous route only when he knows or should know it to be unsafe. [3] It is stated in 65A C.J.S., Negligence, pp. 75, 77, sec. 122, that: ... In order that one may be guilty of contributory negligence in selecting the hazardous course, it must appear that he knew and appreciated, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known and appreciated, that the course chosen was not unlikely to result in his injury. Fundamental to a finding of negligence in the choice of an alternate route is the fact that a person knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, the dangers of the route chosen. The facts of this case do not present a situation permitting the application of the alternate-course rule. The trial court committed no error in rejecting plaintiffs' offer of testimony as to the availability of an alternate route, and in not submitting the issue to the jury.