Court Opinion

ID: 9518835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:03:10.011394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:04.171873
License: Public Domain

Kokjer, District Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The rule set out in syllabus number 1 of the majority opinion is correct but it should not be applied as a matter of law in this case. Had defendant driven his car into the left-turn lane at such a speed that he was unable to stop, even under the icy conditions existing, before hitting the car in which plaintiff was a passenger, he would have been guilty of negligence as a matter of law. The rule would also apply as a matter of law if he failed to maintain a proper lookout and ran into the car which was in plain view ahead. In this case the evidence indicates, that defendant was driving slowly; and that he saw the car ahead and stopped without coming into contact with it. The question then is, did he stop; as claimed, before hitting the car; or, after having stopped, was he negligent in any way when he released his brakes and tried to back up? This is a question of fact. It was submitted to the jury, as it should have been, by the trial court and decided by the jury in favor of defendant. The trial court committed no error and the judgment should be affirmed.
Smith and McCown, JJ., concur in this dissent.