Court Opinion

ID: 9794286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:03:12.932182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:40.473589
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The evidence is uncontradicted that the warning signs were posted and visible. The investigating officer, who approached the scene of the accident from the *301south shortly after its occurrence, testified that he saw the two signs reading “Construction Slow” and “One Way Traffic.” He stated that he was able to readily read these signs and had to drive around them.
The driver of plaintiff’s tank truck did not testify that the signs were not visible, but only that he did not remember having seen them.
It would seem that this failure to see that which was plainly there for any driver using minimal care to observe was negligence.1 A person must be held to have seen adequate signs on a highway which would warn the ordinarily prudent driver of highway conditions, so as to require him to govern the operation and speed of his motor vehicle accordingly.2
In the instant case, plaintiff’s driver did not slacken the speed of the truck or exercise a greater degree of care than usual after passing the warning signs. He should have had the truck under such control that he could bring it to a stop before striking the pile of dirt.3
The plaintiff’s driver either failed to look, or having looked, failed to see what he should have seen.

. Andersen v. State, 282 App.Div. 119, 121 N.Y.S.2d 678; see Mingus v. Olsson, 114 Utah 505, 201 P.2d 495.

. Stalker v. State, 206 Misc. 912, 135 N.Y.S.2d 160.

.5A Blashfield, Cyc. of Automobile Law, p. 406.