Court Opinion

ID: 9633855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:03:43.749469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:43.849709
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice.
Appeal from a dismissal of the complaint in an auto accident case. Affirmed with costs to defendant. The dismissal was bottomed on contributory negligence.
At 11 p. m. one night plaintiff drove north at SO m. p. h. on a four-lane highway, divided by a 35-foot island, and bordered on each side by open farm lands. She collided with a car driven by decedent, who, with his headlights on, drove onto the highway from a road approaching from the right (Draper Road). The driver, whose admin-istratrix is the defendant here, was killed. The car in which he had been riding was estimated to be traveling at about 40 m. p. h. 300 feet from the intersection and did not stop or slow down for the stop sign which was designed to control westbound traffic on the Draper Road, and which was situated about 70 feet from the point of impact. However, at the time of impact the death car was traveling between 10 and 20 m. p. h. The plaintiff was familiar with the intersection, having driven the highway many times.
Plaintiff admitted that she saw nothing until the car in which Mr. Syme was killed appeared directly in front of her at a distance of 20 to 30 feet. This was the case even though plaintiff’s own witnesses who were following about a block behind had no difficulty whatever in observing and watching the whole occurrence, including the decedent’s car’s approach toward the highway from a considerable distance along the Draper Road, through the stop sign, into the intersection and on to the collision and fatality.
Under such circumstances we cannot but conclude that plaintiff either looked and failed to see the obvious, or failed to look at all, and, as a matter of law negligently contributed to her own injuries and the death of another motorist. In other instances of negligent failure to look or to see that which is there to be seen, where the facts were no stronger than those here, we have concluded, as we do here, that *321there was contributory negligence as a matter of law which precluded recovery.1
McDonough, c. j., and crockett . and WORTHEN, JJ., concur.

. Sant v. Miller, 115 Utah 559, 206 P.2d 719; Cederloff v. Whited, 110 Utah 45, 169 P.2d 777; Mingus v. Olsson, 114 Utah 505, 201 P.2d 495; Cox v. Thompson, Utah, 254 P.2d 1047; Wilkinson v. Oregon Short L. R. Co., 35 Utah 110, 99 P. 466; Covington v. Carpenter, 4 Utah 2d 378, 294 P.2d 788.