Court Opinion

ID: 9736052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:41:58.044322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:03.701992
License: Public Domain

Otis, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion holding that the evidence supports a finding Leikvoll was negligent in the action he took to prevent a second accident following the initial collision.
Bearing in mind that Leikvoll was completely exonerated with respect to the first collision, in my opinion it is a gross miscarriage of justice to impose liability on him for the decisions which he had to make and *450implement within a period of 4 or 5 minutes. It is one thing to determine from the vantage of hindsight that as matters developed other measures might have been more effective. It is another to judge Leikvoll’s conduct in the light of the exigencies and emergencies which he felt bound to cope with in the course of a very few moments. Reviewing the action which Leikvoll did take, it occurs to me that he behaved with singular dispatch and efficiency and covered a great deal of territory in a very short period of time.
Following the initial collision, Leikvoll took the following action: He immediately checked with Traphagan and Bounds to determine their physical condition, returned to his wrecker which was parked well off the traveled portion of the highway, secured a flashlight, crossed the highway and directed Rodekuhr to call the highway patrol, determined that Simmons had flares available, returned to his truck and activated the red flashers on top of the vehicle and on each side, hurried down the highway 400 feet with a lighted flare in one hand and a flashlight in the other, posted himself 10 feet in front of a lighted pickup truck whose clearance lights and rear lights were flashing, slowed down oncoming cars with his flare and flashlight, and, upon seeing Cech, shouted so loud that he was heard some 900 feet from where he stood. To hold, as the majority opinion suggests, that a jury could find him liable for activating his red flasher lights, which Cech admits he saw a half mile away, is expounding a rule which, in my opinion, defies all logic. It occurs to me that although Leikvoll acted with remarkable presence, under the ruling adopted today he would have been no worse off and perhaps better advised to have simply taken his wrecker and departed from the scene without assuming any responsibility. If he is to be held hable in this case, it is difficult to imagine any situation in which a driver involved without fault in an accident is safe in taking measures to warn oncoming vehicles.
For the reasons stated I would hold the evidence does not support a finding that Leikvoll was negligent.