Court Opinion

ID: 9529063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:47:06.316482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:38.522190
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent in this case for the reason that I think the trial court committed reversible •error in giving Instruction No. 9 and in refusing to give plaintiff’s requested Instructions Nos. 4 and 10.
The inclusion of the words “appreciable length of time” in Instruction No. 9 was improper. The first part of that instruction is as follows:
“You are further instructed that under the laws of this state, at intersecting roads or streets, vehicles approaching from the right shall have the right of way over those approaching from the left, and this means that where two vehicles reach the intersection at approximately the same time the one approaching from the left shall pause and permit the one approaching from the right to pass the intersection first, but if the vehicle approaching from the left reaches the intersection an appreciable length of time ahead of the one approaching from the right, it would have the right of way over the other, whether approaching from the right or left. * * *” (Emphasis ours.)
In view of 47 O.S.1951 § 121.6, which provides in part as follows:
“(a) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection from a different highway.
“When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle' on the right. * * * ”
I think that the words “appreciable length of time” are also misleading. The trial court should have given an instruction in conformity to the statute. Since the plaintiff was riding in an automobile that was proceeding north and the defendant’s car was proceeding west, the jury could well have been confused as to who had right-of-way at the intersection. When the statute says that the driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection from a different highway, it is something else to say that he must have been there “an appreciable length of time” ahead of the one approaching from the right in order to have right-of-way. The *324words' “an appreciable length of time” should have been eliminated from the instruction and the language of the statute adopted.
Requested Instruction No. 4 is as follows:
“You are instructed that the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant was guilty of six different acts of negligence. In this connection you are instructed that if the plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was guilty of any one or more of said acts of negligence on the part of the defendant, and that such negligence on the part of the defendant'was a direct and proximate cause of the collision and the resulting injuries to the plaintiff, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff.”
In Instruction No. 2, the court charged the jury in part as follows:
“The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence all of the material allegations of the petition, and unless the plaintiff has proved these allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, your verdict must be for the defendant.”
In view of the broad language used in the general instruction, I think the court should have given the above requested instruction and that its failure to do so constitutes reversible error.-
Requested Instruction Nq. 10 is as follows :
“You are instructed that Section 121.4 of Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes, makes the following requirement:
“‘(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven to the right of the center of the roadway.’
“If you find from the evidence that the defendant was violating such statutory provision at the time of the collision, and that such violation was a direct and proximate cause of the collision and resulting injuries then your verdict should be for the plaintiff,”
The testimony of a highway patrolman constituted some evidence tending to show that defendant was traveling on the left side of the center of the highway as he entered the intersection and sufficient evidence from which the jury might have so found and might have also found that he was guilty of negligence in so doing and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. This issue is not covered in the general instructions. I think this instruction should have been given and the court’s refusal to give the instruction also constitutes reversible error.
The error of the trial court in giving an improper instruction and in refusing to give proper requested instructions could and may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice in this case. His errors should be corrected. From the majority opinion refusing to do so, I dissent.