Court Opinion

ID: 9680194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:24:48.843171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:26.631591
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the principal opinion, although I am unable to perceive any real distinction in principle between the city’s failure in the present case to warn the westbound plaintiff that the lanes north of the median carried two-way traffic, and the city’s failure to warn the plaintiff in Watson v. Kansas City, 499 S.W.2d 515 (Mo. banc 1973) that the street on which she was driving came to a dead end at a “T” intersection with a steep drop-off immediately beyond. Both cases involve seri-out injury to an automobile driver resulting directly from failure on the part of the city to erect appropriate warning signs, regardless of whether it is denominated traffic control or keeping the streets reasonably safe for travel. In my judgment, the view adopted in the present case is the more enlightened and sensible one and comports with the realities of what motorists have become accustomed to expect in the *149way of warnings from those who have charge of the streets and highways over which they are driving.
Despite the bow which the principal opinion makes to the recent Watson decision, supra, I agree with Judge Holman that the two are in direct conflict.