Court Opinion

ID: 9624447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:03:13.452525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:46.738224
License: Public Domain

BRAND, J.,
specially concurring.
This case involves the “incontrovertible physical facts rule”. The driver of the defendant’s car testified that when he was within 18 to 25 feet of the intersection and traveling 15 miles per hour, he looked easterly along Madison street for from 80 to 100 feet, and the area was clear. He then proceeded. The plaintiff testified that when he was at the intersection, going 20 miles per hour, he looked south on Fifth Avenue and saw the defendant’s bus from 50 to 75 feet south of the south curb of the intersection. If the testimony of either side were accepted as absolutely correct, strange conclusions might be reached as to the conduct of the other, *27in view of the fact that the collision occurred. Obviously someone was in error as to distances or speeds, or both. I agree that the number of feet that a car can travel at a given period of time, and at a given speed, is an incontrovertible physical fact. I agree that plaintiff’s bus could not have been traveling 300 miles per hour. But, a jury is as competent as a judge to make simple arithmetical calculations, and to apply the result, in determining the effect and value of the evidence. They need no instruction on such a matter, and I am of the opinion that none should be given in such a ease.
While I agree with the result reached by the majority, I am apprehensive lest the language of the opinion may lead to an improper understanding of the incontrovertible physical facts rule. The opinion refers to testimony concerning the physical facts,
“i.e., the position of the unmoved vehicles when he arrived at the scene of the accident, the debris on the pavement indicating the point of impact as 15 feet west and 15 feet south of the northeast corner of the intersection, the skid marks after impact, the condition of the light pole struck by defendant’s bus, the distance each bus traveled after the collision, and the location of the structures on the four corners of the intersection. * * *”
We are told that there was no dispute in the case about the physical facts, i.e., where the defendant’s bus was struck, the location of the debris, the skid marks, and the distances each vehicle traveled. Truly, the location of the debris has a bearing upon the place of collision, but only by reason of inferences which may be drawn as to how near, or how far, from the debris the actual point of impact was. The conclusion would depend upon the relative force exerted by the two vehicles in causing the debris to fall at the point where it *28was found. The distance from the point of impact at which the vehicles were found was susceptible to accurate measurement. But the reason for their being at the distances found might depend upon many factors. As for instance, the weight of the car; the time when the ignition was turned off; the force of the blow by the other car; the manner in which the brakes were employed. The skid marks were no doubt observable and measurable, but their significance would also depend on the speed of the respective vehicles, their respective weights, and the force applied to each by the contact with the other, and the extent to which brakes may have been applied. Again, the condition of the light pole which was struck by the defendant’s bus could be accurately observed and photographed. But the significance of the condition in which it was found would depend upon inferences to be drawn from a number of different circumstances. Furthermore, it seems to me clear that the physical facts rule should not be invoked when it is predicated upon the testimony of a witness in a moving vehicle, as to the speed or distance of another vehicle on an intersecting street, at some instant of time, which cannot be accurately known, and when distance and speed may have changed at any other moment. From Van Zandt v. Goodman et al., 181 Or 80, 179 P2d 724, I quote:
“It is said that ‘the physical facts rule cannot come into play with respect to the position, speed, etc., of movable objects, if the facts relative to speed, position, etc., must be established by oral evidence’ or ‘where it is necessary to make estimates or measurements, or to start with an assumption of the existence of a fact.’ Anderson, An Automobile Accident Suit, 707 § 571; 708, § 572. See cases cited in the notes and Duling v. Burnett, 22 Tenn. App. 522, 124 S.W. (2d) 294.
*29“In Gilmore v. Orchard, 177 Wis. 149, 151, 187 N.W. 1005, Mr. Justice Rosenberry said upon this subject:
“ ‘Some statements made by the plaintiff in his testimony are inconsistent with the facts as found by the jury, but the statements made by the plaintiff are not physical facts. They are statements máde by him of the facts as they appeared to him, and it may well be that the shock of the accident left his mind confused as to his exact position or as to the exact sequence of events immediately preceding the collision.’ ”
In my opinion, this court should not approve the instruction given in this case. It tends to place oral evidence of the kind above-mentioned, in a separate category and to give to it some special weight or sanctity. All of the oral evidence in the case related to the facts in issue. Some of the so-called facts were based upon estimate alone, and all of the “physical facts”, so-called, were relevant only because of logical inferences which might be drawn therefrom. To designate a part of the oral evidence as “physical facts”, and to suggest that physical-fact evidence is of a higher degree of probative value than other testimony concerning the facts in issue, unnecessarily complicates the thinking of the jury, who, after all, must weigh all of the relevant evidence, giving to each part thereof only the weight to which it is entitled in view of all the rest.
Strictly speaking, the instruction given did not comment on any special evidence. It did lay down a rule as to the weighing of evidence in general. The statute OCLA, § 5-308, which has deprived trial courts of the highly salutary common-law power to comment on the evidence, merely provides that the court “shall not present the facts of the ease * * The trial court *30did not present the facts of the case, but it did lay down a rule which, if followed by the jury, would have somewhat restricted their consideration of the case. If, under our former decisions which appear to me to go beyond the requirements of the statute, the restriction is to be considered an improper comment on the evidence, I think it was cured by other instructions, and did not constitute reversible error. I therefore concur in the result.
WARNER, J., joins in this opinion.