Court Opinion

ID: 9624577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:09:49.579001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:50.225840
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice McWilliams
dissenting:
I perceive no prejudicial error in the giving of instruction number 3. Certainly the jury was entitled to be informed as to the nature and extent of the duty which is imposed by statute on a driver who stops or suddenly decreases his speed on the open roadway. Instruction number 3 advises the jury that such a driver must either exhibit brake lights OR give an appropriate hand signal. It would seem to me that it would be to the definite advantage of the plaintiffs to have the jury instructed that the applicable statute does not require a hand signal if brake lights are exhibited. And this was the effect of instruction number 3.
Furthermore, the defect perceived by Mr. Justice Groves in instruction number 3 does not strike me as being of sufficient import to require a second trial of this matter. At least we know that upon trial experienced counsel for the plaintiff did not object to instruction number 3 on the particular ground upon which Mr. Justice Groves specially concurs in the majority opinion.