Court Opinion

ID: 9827349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:26:22.062661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:29.602823
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 In its motion for rehearing appellant challenges the sufficiency of both pleadings and evidence. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s car turned to the left and in front of plaintiff so'suddenly that plaintiff could not avoid colliding with it. He further alleged that this act was negligently done. This is equivalent to alleging that before making the turn the driver of the turning vehicle did not see first that there was “sufficient space for such movement to be made in safety,” as required by article 801 (K) of our Penal Code, which provides that “the person' in charge of -any vehicle upon any public highway before turning, stopping or changing the course of such vehicle shall see first that there is sufficient space for such movement to be made in safety.” This duty is separate from the duty prescribed by the words immediately following, which is to give a “plainly visible or audible” signal to the driver of any car the movement of which might be affected *988by such change of course. Obviously the signal would be futile if the movement could not be made in safety; and, therefore, there is a complete failure of duty upon the part of the driver of the turning car, if he does not first use reasonable care to see that the turn may be made in safety. To allege that a collision was inevitable if the turn was made at the time of the occurrence was to allege in strongest terms that it could not be “made in safety.” This was the effect of plaintiff’s allegation.
Applying a statute couched in language identical with that used in article 801 (K), and commenting upon the duty of a motorist making a turn at an intersection, the California Supreme Court, in Donat v. Dillon, 192 Cal. 426,221 P. 193,195, said, “Although, a machine first reaching the intersection may have the right of way, it does not follow that one who changes his course at the intersection of a street is entitled to the full protection of this rule, for common sense tells us that he is bound to exercise great care to avoid colliding with machines that are on the street, and across whose path he must travel. Clark 'v. Fotheringham, 100 Wash. 12, 170 P. 323. It seems to us that this was what the Legislature had in mind-when it provided that a vehicle, before starting to turn, ‘shall see first that there is sufficient space for such movement to be made in safety,’ so that the practical effect of this provision is to cast upon motorists intending to turn the duty of exercising greater care than is ordinarily required of them.”
Having in mind the duty of defendant to ascertain that there was sufficient space for the turning movement to be made in safety before making it, and the allegation that the car was turned so suddenly that plaintiff could not avoid cplliding with it, we held that the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury. This was the effect of the opinion in the California case cited, and is our independent view. Defendant’s employee testified that plaintiff’s car struck his before he “had time to get turned good; that plaintiff’s car hit the front end and radiator of defendant’s car.” Plaintiff testified that he was driving south of the center of the road going east; that his lights were burning; that his speed was about 30 miles an hour; that he remembered “seeing the car that loomed up in front of” him; “that something came .turning over in front pf me, and that is all I remember.” J. A. Fisher, who was working for the State Highway Department at the time of the accident, testified that he was going east; that he had followed plaintiff’s car some distance and that its taillight was visible; that he was traveling about 30 miles ah hour, and the car ahead of him could not have been going; much faster than that; that after the collision he arrived upon the scene and plaintiff’s car was on the south side of the road headed southeast and was clear of the blacktop ; that defendant’s car was headed “right into the Doctor’s (plaintiff’s) car and its right rear wheel was still on the blacktop while the rest of it was clear of the blacktop.” The evidence was sufficient to make a jury issue and to justify the answer that was returned.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.