Court Opinion

ID: 9632094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:02:51.113212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:08.644047
License: Public Domain

Fatzeb, J.,
dissenting: In my opinion, the court has not correctly disposed of this case by affirming the district court’s order sustaining the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
*620In my judgment, the court overemphasizes the plaintiff’s familiarity with the intersection in question. The evidence showed that she was familiar with and had driven Tenth Street, but she was unfamiliar with the Poor Farm Road, and where it intersected Tenth Street. Moreover, there was evidence of the blinding headlights of the defendant’s automobile and of obstructions to the stop sign by a large mailbox. The legal questions in this case were aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Harvey in Lawrence v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 167 Kan. 45, 204 P. 2d 752, where it was said:
“The legal questions here involved are so well settled in our law that they need not be labored. The actions were ones at common law in which plaintiffs sought damages alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligence, and defendant had pleaded contributory negligence of the plaintiffs. These are the kinds of actions in which each party is entitled to a trial by jury as a matter of right. They should not be converted into trials by the court. Negligence is the lack of due care. The instances are relatively rare when the facts are such that the court should say that as a matter of law the negligence alleged has been established. Before the court should make such a holding the evidence should be so clear that reasonable minds, considering it, could have but one opinion, namely, that the party was negligent. In these cases we think the contributory negligence of plaintiffs was clearly a question of fact for the jury . . .” (1. c. 49.)
If this case were reversed and a new trial ordered, under the evidence the jury might very well find that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
I would reverse the district court’s order sustaining the motion for a directed verdict.