Court Opinion

ID: 9853524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:49:50.21958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:50.658547
License: Public Domain

Cochran, J.,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority opinion that the appellant was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. She made a left turn under hazardous weather conditions directly across the path of appellee’s car which was overtaking and passing her. A glance to her left, however fleeting, immediately before beginning her turn would have revealed the other vehicle.
By her own testimony appellant was driving south through snow in the tracks of other vehicles straddling the center line that divided the two southbound lanes. Her left turn signal was on. When about *52950 yards from the crossover she rolled down her side window, looked in her outside rear view mirror, saw nothing and gave a left-turn hand signal. She thought she was not more than five feet from the snow bank close to the left edge of the pavement. She was certain that there was not enough room for a car to pass her going south. Obviously, she was wrong. It never occurred to her that anybody would attempt to pass her. This explains but does not excuse her failure to look to her left.
The majority opinion would leave it to a jury to determine whether appellant was as nearly as reasonably possible within her left-hand lane under the requirements of Code I 46-231(3), as construed in Asphalt Service Co. v. Thomas, 198 Va. 490, 494, 95 S.E.2d 141, 144 (1956). But appellee’s car was between appellant and the left edge of the pavement. This uncontroverted fact establishes to my satisfaction that appellant could not possibly be found to have complied with Code § 46-231(3).
Further, appellant had the duty under Code § 46.1-216 to see that her turn could be made with reasonable safety. In making the turn from her position in the road she could not and did not discharge this duty by looking into an outside mirror 50 yards from the crossover.
As this court has said in Nehi Bottling Co. v. Lambert, 196 Va. 949, 958, 959, 86 S. E. 2d 156, 161 (1955):
“Plaintiff either failed to look when looking would have been effective or he [she] failed to heed when he [she] saw or should have seen ....
“ ‘The driver of a car who keeps a lookout and fails to take advantage of what it discloses is as guilty of negligence as one who fails to keep a lookout. The result is usually the same’. Yellow Cab Co. v. Eden, 178 Va. 325, 341, 16 S. E. 2d 625, 631.”
Whether appellant failed to look when looking would have been effective or looked and failed to see appellee’s car overtaking and passing her she was equally negligent. “When a situation is open and obvious, one will not be heard to say that he looked and did not see.” Russell v. Kelly, 180 Va. 304, 309, 23 S. E. 2d 124, 126, 127 (1942); cited in Nehi Bottling Co. v. Lambert, supra, at 957, 86 S. E. 2d at 160. See also Matthews v. Hicks, 197 Va. 112, 115, 87 S. E. 2d 629, 631 (1955), and cases there cited.
I would affirm the judgment of the lower court.
I’Anson and Gordon, JJ., join in this dissent.