Court Opinion

ID: 9520768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:49:29.719675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:54.162332
License: Public Domain

Broadfoot, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree with the result reached in this case by the majority of the court. From the record before us I am unable to see that there is any justification for finding the defendant Estervig negligent in any respect. I cannot agree that the rule of Teas v. Eisenlord mentioned in the majority opinion should be extended to a situation where traffic at an intersection is controlled by a traffic officer. Where traffic is controlled by signal lights there is justification for that rule because drivers may attempt to go through an intersection on the amber or orange light. However, when a traffic officer is within an intersects ~n and stops traffic going in one direction and signals for *648the traffic in the other direction to start up, drivers should be entitled to rely upon the traffic officer’s signal. To force drivers under those circumstances to look in all directions for other drivers who are negligently operating their vehicles is to put an undue burden upon them. This is particularly true where a driver is traveling on a one-way street with two or three lines of cars moving into the intersection.
Nor can I agree that the plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law. In my opinion the defendant Behnke was entirely at fault for the accident.