Court Opinion

ID: 9678548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:22:54.797285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.612373
License: Public Domain

SANDERS, Justice
(concurring).
Although the majority holds that the plaintiff was negligent, it also concludes her negligence, in illegally parking her car on the highway at night, was not a “proximate or contributing cause of the accident.,r I am unable to subscribe to the conclusion that plaintiff’s negligence was noncontributory. Under the recognized tests of causation, plaintiff’s negligence had a causal connection with the collision. The majority, however, makes the following additional factual finding:
“Coe obviously was negligent in failing to observe the lighted, parked vehicle until he was 30 feet or less from its rear. He should have observed the lighted car under the circumstances at a considerable distance, in time to move sufficiently to his left on the unobstructed portion of- the highway and avoid the collision. ”
*669■ Considering this factual finding, I conclude that defendant Coe had a last clear chance to avoid the collision. By slight evasive action, he could have passed without striking the parked vehicle. Hence, his insurer is liable.
For the reasons assigned, I concur in the decree.