Court Opinion

ID: 9738754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:02:03.448837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:08.268756
License: Public Domain

*9Currie, J.
(concurring). Paragraph 10 of the complaint alleges in- part:
. . that the defendant, Allen Becker, thereupon halted and commandeered the semitractor and trailer owned and operated by the said defendant, Herbert E. Nead, and directed the same to be placed horizontally across Highway 41 obstructing said highway; that the defendant, Allen Becker, on information and belief, further caused said .highway to be obstructed by placing his squad car in such a position as to block the shoulder of said highway, and further caused said highway to be obstructed by placing another semitrailer owned by defendant, Herbert E. Nead, on the shoulder of the highway.”
It is implicit in the above-quoted allegations that the control of Nead’s two vehicles, while constituting part of the roadblock, was in Officer Becker. Whether or not, there should have been any lights on them would depend on the nature of the roadblock Becker desired to establish. Therefore, while the two vehicles constituted part of this road-, block, Nead was under no duty to turn on lights or put out flares unless commanded by Becker to do so.
I quite agree with the dissenting opinion that upon demurrer we cannot look beyond the complaint for our facts. The majority opinion does not do so and I fully concur therein.