Opinion ID: 1890133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Submission of Comparative Fault Jury Instruction

Text: Mr. Hayes first claims that the trial court erred in submitting jury instruction No. 10, a comparative fault instruction for failure to keep a careful lookout based on MAI 17.05. He asserts that there was no substantial evidence to support submission of the instruction to the jury. Whether a jury was properly instructed is a question of law this Court reviews de novo. Bach v. Winfield-Foley Fire Prot. Dist., 257 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Mo. banc 2008). This Court reviews the record in the light most favorable to submission of the instruction. Id. Any issue submitted to the jury in an instruction must be supported by substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably find such issue. Kauzlarich v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 910 S.W.2d 254, 258 (Mo. banc 1995). Substantial evidence is evidence which, if true, is probative of the issues and from which the jury can decide the case. Powderly v. S. County Anesthesia Assocs. Ltd., 245 S.W.3d 267, 276 (Mo.App.2008). If the instruction is not supported by substantial evidence, there is instructional error, which warrants reversal only if the error resulted in prejudice that materially affects the merits of the action. Bach, 257 S.W.3d at 608. In this case, the trial court submitted to the jury a failure to keep a careful lookout comparative fault instruction. The essence of the failure to keep a careful lookout claim is a failure to see and a failure to act. Lovelace v. Reed, 486 S.W.2d 417, 418-19 (Mo.1972). Alleged negligent failure to keep a careful lookout is not to be submitted to the jury unless there is substantial evidence from which the jury could find that, in the exercise of the highest degree of care, the allegedly negligent party, had he kept a careful lookout, could have seen the other vehicle . . . in time thereafter to have taken effective precautionary action. Heberer v. Duncan, 449 S.W.2d 561, 563 (Mo. banc 1970). The inquiry is two-fold: if the driver was keeping a careful lookout, could the driver have seen the danger; and, if the driver could have seen the danger, did the driver have the ability to take some precautionary measure such as veering, utilizing a horn, or slowing speed to prevent the accident? The evidence must support a finding that a driver had the means and ability to have avoided a collision. Thurman v. Anderson, 693 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Mo. banc 1985). Means and ability include sufficient time and distance considering the movement and speed of the vehicles. Id. Ms. Price argues, in support of the trial court's submission of Mr. Hayes's comparative fault, that if Mr. Hayes had been keeping a careful lookout, he would have seen impending danger and he could have slowed down or taken some action to avoid the collision. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to submission of the instruction, the evidence was that Mr. Hayes had the ability to observe Ms. Price's vehicle approach the intersection, before her vehicle was hidden in the cone-shaped blind zone created by the Bronco. Even if Ms. Price had her turn signal activated at this time, however, Mr. Hayes had a green light and the right of way as he approached the intersection, and he was justified in assuming that Ms. Price would yield to oncoming traffic until she gave positive indication to the contrary. See id. at 808. Prior to entering the blind zone, there was no evidence that Mr. Hayes had information to alert him that he should not proceed through the intersection at his speed of 30 miles per hour. The evidence was that, as Mr. Hayes and Ms. Price neared the intersection from opposite directions, the Bronco in the left lane on southbound Maiden Lane created a blind zone, obstructing the view of both Mr. Hayes and Ms. Price. [3] Ms. Price initially stopped at the intersection. She began to turn only after Mr. Hayes's view was obstructed by the Bronco. There is no evidence that at the point that Mr. Hayes exited the blind zone, when he would have seen Ms. Price making a turn if he had been keeping a careful lookout, there was sufficient time for beeping, swerving, or decelerating that would have prevented the collision. Mr. Hayes was traveling at approximately 30 miles per hour, five miles less than the speed limit, which is a pace of approximately 1.5 feet per second. Ronald McKinzie, an accident reconstruction expert, testified that there were two seconds, approximately 88 feet, between Mr. Hayes exiting the blind zone and the collision. The average reaction time of 1.5 seconds would not have given Mr. Hayes sufficient time to react and avoid the collision once he left the blind zone. Ms. Price argues that if Mr. Hayes had been keeping a careful lookout while he was still in the blind zone, the actions of his motorcycle companion, Mr. Cook, would have put him on notice of impending danger in the intersection at a point that he had sufficient time to react and avoid the collision. Mr. Cook testified that he saw Ms. Price starting her turn across the southbound lanes of the intersection. He waved to get her attention because he believed she was going to pull out in front of him. He then signaled to her that another motorcycle was behind him by holding up two fingers. Ms. Price asserts that if Mr. Hayes had been keeping a careful lookout, he would have seen Mr. Cook's gesture, putting him on notice of something dangerous or something to cause concern in the upcoming intersection. Mr. McKinzie testified that Mr. Hayes was up to 171 feet away when Mr. Cook gestured and Ms. Price began her turn. At his speed of 30 miles per hour, Mr. Hayes was 3.9 seconds away from impact at that time. [4] Giving Mr. Hayes the average reaction time of 1.5 seconds, he then would have had 2.4 seconds in which to take evasive action. Mr. McKinzie testified that, if Mr. Hayes's motorcycle was traveling at a speed of less than 30 miles per hour, there was an opportunity that Ms. Price could have avoided the collision. While Ms. Price did not see Mr. Hayes prior to the impact, the evidence reasonably would support a finding that, if Mr. Hayes had honked his horn and slowed, Ms. Price would have been alerted to the danger and could have stopped her car before impact. At her speed of approximately 5 to 10 miles per hour, she needed only 12 feet of reaction time and 2 feet to stop. The issue, then, is whether a motorcyclist exercising the highest degree of care reasonably would have seen Mr. Cook's gesture and perceived the gesture as a warning of a condition that required evasive action. Both Mr. Hayes and Mr. Cook testified that it is hard for people in cars to see motorcyclists. Mr. Hayes stated that a motorcyclist must be cognizant of everyone around the motorcyclist and drive defensively. Mr. Cook testified that it was part of his job, as the lead motorcyclist, to give warnings to the motorcyclist behind him if he encounters any sort of dangerous situation. Mr. Hayes recognized that the second motorcyclist has to look for such warnings from the lead motorcyclist. With regard to the specific gesture made by Mr. Cook, Mr. Cook testified that as he passed through the intersection and saw Ms. Price beginning to pull out in front of him, he made eye contact with her, pointed back behind him, and pointed two fingers out. He testified that this gesture was a warning to Ms. Price that there was a second motorcycle coming and not a warning to Mr. Hayes. Mr. Hayes testified that such a gesture is sometimes a warning given to a driver of a vehicle in the intersection. There was no evidence that the type of gesture made by Mr. Cook was an indication of danger that Mr. Hayes should have seen and recognized as requiring evasive action. As noted previously, this Court held in Thurman v. Anderson that a driver entering an intersection with the right of way is justified in assuming that cars going in the opposite direction will obey a traffic signal at least until a driver gave positive indication to the contrary. 693 S.W.2d at 808. Likewise, a driver is entitled to assume a car going in the opposite direction will yield the right of way to oncoming traffic before turning, until the driver gives a positive indication to the contrary. Such a driver has every right to proceed through an intersection even though there is a driver approaching; the only exception is if it should have been apparent that the other driver is not respecting the traffic law. See id. Mr. Hayes had the right to assume that Ms. Price would yield to oncoming traffic until he was reasonably aware that she was not doing so, and until he was so aware, he was not required to take evasive action like slackening his speed or sounding his horn. Ms. Price failed to present substantial evidence to support the submission of Mr. Hayes's comparative fault because there was no evidence that a reasonable driver could or should have seen any indication of a danger at a time that would allow him to have the means and ability to use an evasive action to avoid the collision. Because the failure to keep a careful lookout instruction was not supported by substantial evidence, the instruction was improperly submitted to the jury. The improper submission is prejudicial because Mr. Hayes was assessed a percentage of comparative fault for the accident as a result of the erroneous instruction, and his damages were reduced by that percentage. The portion of the trial court's judgment accessing 20 percent of the fault to Mr. Hayes is reversed.