Opinion ID: 1308100
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: sudden stop exception

Text: Roth also contends that the district court was correct in overruling the Martins' motions because the evidence established that Martin made a sudden stop prior to her vehicle's being rear-ended, thereby invoking the sudden stop exception to the range of vision rule. After viewing all relevant facts in favor of Martin, we conclude that the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that Martin did not come to a sudden stop prior to her vehicle's being rear-ended. On direct examination, Martin did testify that the car in front of her stopped abruptly, causing her to stop suddenly. However, on both direct and cross-examination, Martin stated that her vehicle was not rear-ended until 30 to 60 seconds after she came to a stop. Roth offered no testimony that Martin came to a sudden and unexpected stop in front of him. Indeed, as the following testimony of Roth shows, he was well aware of stopping vehicles in his lane of traffic and in no way attributed the cause of the collision to Martin's sudden stop: Q. And this vehicle then moved from your lane into the next lane; is that correct? A. Yes, it did. Q. And after he did so, were you able to observe whether there was traffic in your lane? A. Yes. And tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you saw. A. I saw stopped or very slow moving traffic in my lane. Q. And did you observe the automobile that was owned and operated by Mrs. Martin? A. Yes, I did. Q. And was her car directly in front of your car? A. Yes, it was. Q. Did you hit your brakes, then? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did it slow your vehicle down? A. Notit did at first, yes. Q. Okay. And then tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what happened. A. Okay I was coming to a stop like I normally would behind traffic and all the suddenI mean I wasn'tI noticed I wasn't getting the same amount of braking as I was a few seconds earlier. It wasI was sliding on gravel, and I did that until I hit the back of Mrs. Martin's car. Absent conflicting evidence as to whether a driver brought his vehicle to a sudden and abrupt stop, the determination of whether the sudden stop exception to the range of vision rule applies is to be determined as a matter of law. See Greyhound Corp. v. Lyman-Richey Sand & Gravel Corp., 161 Neb. 152, 72 N.W.2d 669 (1955). The evidence, even when viewed in a light most favorable to Roth, establishes that Martin's vehicle was completely stopped prior to being rear-ended 30 to 60 seconds later by Roth, who applied his brakes like he normally would behind traffic. Thus, despite Martin's characterization of her stop as a sudden one, we conclude that the testimony adduced concerning what actually happened provides no evidence of a sudden and abrupt stop such that the sudden stop exception to the range of vision rule applies.