Court Opinion

ID: 9711611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:35:17.544598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:06.317900
License: Public Domain

Currie, J.
(dissenting). In this case the defendant Anderson had a clear unobstructed view available to him of 1,700 feet of highway to the south. He proceeded to drive onto the paved portion of such highway from the west, or left, side thereof diagonally across in the path of the oncoming Heinecke car. Anderson failed to clear the center line of the *95pavement, but still had the left rear corner of the truck on the left side of such center line when the truck was struck by the oncoming Heinecke car.
The undisputed testimony is that the headlights of the Heinecke automobile were lighted. Nevertheless, Anderson testified that he never at any time saw the Heinecke car prior to the impact. This in my opinion constituted negligence with respect to lookout as a matter of law. It surely was the duty of Anderson at some time, before placing the truck across the highway directly in the path of the oncoming Heinecke car, to have made an observation which would have disclosed the approach of such car.
This is not a case where one attempting to enter and proceed upon a highway with a motor vehicle makes an observation and sees an approaching car and concludes that he has time to enter and get straightened around on his own side of the road without causing a collision, and a collision nevertheless occurs because of the excessive speed of the approaching vehicle. In the latter situation the issue of lookout is properly for the jury.
I would affirm the judgment for the reasons so well stated by the learned trial judge in his memorandum opinion that Anderson was causally negligent as to lookout as a matter of law.