Court Opinion

ID: 9442841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:01:28.606688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:15.453281
License: Public Domain

SOPER, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
The only legal basis for submitting this case to the jury is the possibility that the truck may have had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. There is evidence that when, contrary to law and ordinary prudence, the doctor drove his car across a double white line on to the left side of the road and attempted to speed past the truck as it was slowly approaching a road intersection, and when he had gotten a little beyond the truck, it turned to the left and struck the automobile. On account of this evidence I concur in the conclusion that a jury question exists.
But there is no reasonable doubt that both the doctor and his wife were guilty of contributory negligence, and this issue does not present a jury question. It seems to be conceded that he was negligent and the record does not indicate that suit has been brought on his behalf, although both he and his automobile were hurt. Of course his negligence should not be imputed to his wife but she herself testified that she participated in the decision and agreed to the action, without which the accident would not have happened. She was thoroughly familiar with travel by automobile and had traversed the route which they were then following between Florida and Pennsylvania five or six times. She was, as her husband testified, “a good second driver” and when, seated beside him, her husband askéd her advice as to whether they should pass the truck she consented. No stronger evidence of contributory negligence could be furnished.