Court Opinion

ID: 9697714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:27:34.503173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:34.839106
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Associate Judge
(dissenting).
I think the judgment should be affirmed. If plaintiff violated' the traffic regulation by making a left-hand turn -in front of the waiting cars he was guilty of negligence. Violation of a safety regulation is negligence, but that does not mean that the person guilty of t-he violation is responsible for all harm that accompanies or follows his negligence. Ross v. Hartman, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 217, 139 F.2d 14, 158 A.L.R. 1370, certiorari denied, 321 U.S. 790, 64 S.Ct. 790, 88 L.Ed. 1080. This court has said that “while such a violation constitutes negligence per se, in order that it may be available as a defense it must further be shown *780that it was a proximate cause of the accident or contributed to it.” White v. Corbett, D.C.Mun.App., 51 A.2d 676, 677. See also Herndon v. Higdon, D.C.Mun.App., 31 A.2d 854. By its finding of fact that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory • negligence the trial court found that the negligence, if any, of plaintiff did not contribute to the'accident. Whether or not it did was a question of fact and I do not think we can substitute our judgment on a question of fact for that of the trial judge. Even though plaintiff was negligent in making the left-hand turn, there was still a question of fact whether such action contributed to the accident or whether the sole proximate cause was defendant’s action in proceeding in such manner that, according to his own testimony, after going 20 feet he saw plaintiff’s .car “right in front of him,”..and, although • traveling in low gear, struck plaintiff’s car with sufficient force to do $350 worth of damage to it and approximately the same amount of damage to his own car.