Court Opinion

ID: 9706634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:48:11.981011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:24.036325
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Achor, J.
Appellee’s instructions numbered 3 and 4 were clearly erroneous and misleading.
I find nothing in instruction numbered 3 which limits its application to §47-2001, sub-section c-2, Burns’ 1952 Replacement. Under this instruction the jury was charged that “before . . . Aldridge could be charged with the violation of a State law by passing another vehicle on the left, there must be some evidence that at the place where he (appellee) undertook to pass the Koeneman car, his vision ahead was obstructed for a distance of less than five hundred feet by reason of a slope or a curve.” The instruction erroneously excluded the possibility of negligence in violation of §47-2016, Burns’ 1952 Replacement, except under the *193limited conditions specified. Section 47-2016, supra, reads as follows:
“The state highway commission is hereby authorized to determine by an engineering and traffic investigation those portions of any highway where overtaking and passing or driving to the left of the roadway would be especially hazardous and may, by appropriate signs, or marks on the roadway, indicate the beginning and end of such zones and when such signs or markings are in place and clearly visible to an ordinarily observant person, every driver of a vehicle shall obey the directions thereof.” (Our emphasis.)
Appellee’s instruction numbered 4 was erroneous and misleading in that it instructed the jury that before appellee could be charged with negligence in crossing a yellow line painted on the highway by the State Highway Department, it must also be established “that such yellow line was placed there by order and direction of the State Highway Commission after they had determined by an engineering and traffic investigation that these portions were especially hazardous.” That part of the instruction is in direct conflict with §47-2238, Burns’ 1952 Replacement, which makes all markings on State highways prima facie evidence and that they are so placed by proper authority.
I find nothing in appellant’s instruction numbered 10 which invited the error.
Under the evidence, appellee’s instructions 3 and 4 had the effect of completely removing from the jury any consideration of negligence on the part of appellee by reason of his crossing a yellow line in his attempt to pass the appellant and' the car between them. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the error of the instructions was harmless.
Note.—Reported in 122 N. E. 2d 345.