Opinion ID: 1731541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: We consider the question of the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Text: Of particular application here is the law which gives the right to a motorist who is keeping proper lookout ahead to assume that other drivers on the highway will observe the law of the road and will not unlawfully obstruct the highway, even though an existing but vanishing condition may prevent a present view ahead. City of Providence v. Young, 227 Ky. 690, 13 S.W.2d 1022, 1023. Motorists are not obliged by the doctrine of ordinary care to keep a lookout for an unlighted, invisible truck in the lane of their travel. Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell's Adm'r, 260 Ky. 795, 86 S.W.2d 708, 711; Crawford Transport Co. v. Wireman, Ky., 280 S.W.2d 163. The given instruction on contributory negligence defined the plaintiff's duties, in substance, to have been to exercise ordinary care for his own safety; to operate his automobile in a careful manner, having regard for the use and condition of the highway and the atmospheric conditions; to keep a lookout ahead for persons or vehicles in his path or so near thereto as to be in danger of being struck by his car; to exercise ordinary care to run and operate his automobile so as not to collide with another vehicle on the highway, and to have two lighted headlights capable of revealing objects at least 350 feet in front of him under ordinary atmospheric conditions. This was the instruction requested by the plaintiff and seems to be correct as far as it went. But the court added a paragraph, over plaintiff's objection, that it was the further duty of the plaintiff if his vision was blinded or affected by the headlights of the Murray car, to slacken the speed of his automobile, sound its horn and have it under such control that he could, by the exercise of ordinary care, stop it and avoid a collision with any object that might be obstructing the highway which he was not able to see. The grounds of objection were (1) that it would have been a futile thing for him to have sounded his horn under the circumstances, and (2) that he was not required to stop his car to avoid colliding with any object he could not see because the law did not require him to stop but merely to exercise ordinary care. The prefatory Summary to extensive annotations of the subject, Duty and liability of vehicle driver blinded by glare of lights., 22 A.L.R.2d 292, points out that considerations of the congestion of modern highways and normal speed of motor cars have led to a departure by many courts from the earlier rule that required a motorist to stop when blinded by lights of approaching cars. The modern rule, generally accepted, is that a motorist so blinded is not required to stop instantly but his duty is determinable by the standard of ordinary care under the particular circumstances, although the rule is subject to a number of exceptions. A motorist is not entitled to proceed as if he could see ahead, but is required to take additional precautions for the safety of himself and others which are commensurate with the existing danger, such as slackening his speed and bringing his car under such control that he is able to stop it in time to avoid any discernible object in the road ahead or within such distance as he can at all times see what is ahead of him. 5A Am.Jur., Automobiles, §§ 332, 707, 1072; 60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 294; Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law, § 744; Notes, 22 A.L.R.2d 300, et seq. Our later decisions are, generally, to the same effect. City of Providence v. Young, 227 Ky. 690, 13 S.W.2d 1022; Commonwealth v. Daniel, 266 Ky. 285, 98 S.W.2d 897; Knight v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 289 Ky. 661, 159 S.W.2d 1002; Wilson v. Dalton's Adm'r, 311 Ky. 285, 223 S.W.2d 978; Harris v. Luster, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 489; Slusher v. Brown, Ky., 323 S.W.2d 870. Several of these cases and others are reviewed in Ashton v. Roop, Ky., 244 S.W.2d 727, and notice is taken of some inconsistencies. It was therein held that the rule declared in Lexington-Hazard Express Co. v. Umberger, 243 Ky. 419, 48 S.W.2d 1066, and Freeman v. W. T. Sistrunk & Co., 312 Ky. 438, 227 S.W.2d 979, was erroneous because it placed an absolute duty upon the driver of an approaching vehicle blinded by glare of lights to avoid a collision regardless of the character of the act which placed a stationary vehicle on the road. With respect to other duties of a driver whose vision is blinded, no definite rule as to specific action can be laid down which would be applicable to every case. As the present case involved the striking of a stationary object in the plaintiff's lane of travel, we think the instruction imposed too strict a duty upon the plaintiff. It seems to us the instruction should have been that when the plaintiff was blinded or his vision of the highway was obscured by the headlights of the Murray car, it was his duty to take such protective measures for his own safety as an ordinarily prudent driver would take under the same or similar circumstances. The jury may regard that precaution to have required sounding the horn or slackening speed or even stopping, according to the particular circumstances of a case, but no specific instruction on such actions is necessary or desirable. The judgment is reversed for consistent proceedings.