Court Opinion

ID: 9715154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:55:58.046893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:32.060385
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE EBERSPACHER, dissenting: The defendant-appellee neither in the trial court nor here has argued that he was not negligent in the manner so meticulously pointed out. The question in this case is not whether defendant was negligent, nor the degree of his negligence, nor the comparison of the negligence of the parties, but whether there was evidence of contributory negligence on part of the plaintiff. Defendant testified “When I first saw the car stopped in my lane it was 50 to 75 feet away, its taillights were on. His brake fights were not lighted. His turn signals were not on, I didn’t see any turn signals,” and on cross-examination “I should be able to see a stopped car, or a stopping car if it had blinker fights.” Plaintiff on direct-examination testified, “I was slowing down to make my turn. I was in the process of turning or almost turning. I wasn’t into the turn. I was at that time thinking about turning. I had my wheels turned but I was still not turned,” and on cross-examination “I was going to turn in the K-Mart. I believe I had my blinker on. I do not remember having my blinker on. It is a natural reflex. I believe I had my blinker on because it is what I normally do. I don’t remember doing it [signaling]” and further “I don’t remember turning my blinker lights on. My natural reflex is to turn it on,” and “I believe I was right at the turn when I got hit yet not turning. I was within 25 feet of making my turn when I was hit going between five to eight m.p.h.” Plaintiff’s wife who was a passenger in his car testified: “We were turning into K-Mart and we were struck from behind. We hadn’t turned yet.” In my judgment, the determination that plaintiff was free from contributory negligence as a matter of law is wholly unwarranted. When the evidence is viewed in its aspect most favorable to defendant the evidence does not even approach being so overwhelmingly in favor of plaintiff that a verdict for defendant could never stand. Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 292 N.E.2d 504. Obviously, the statutory requirement of a continuous signal of intention to turn which would be visible to the rear was intended to give vehicles approaching from the rear an additional warning of the slowing down of the vehicle. Here there is evidence that plaintiff failed to give this defendant that warning required by statute; and it is as reasonable to assume that if a blinking light had been on the rear of plaintiff’s car, defendant’s attention would have been attracted to it and the accident would not have occurred, as it is to assume that even if the plaintiff had activated his turn signal the accident would still have occurred. Twelve jurors and a judge who heard the evidence obviously determined that there was a failure to comply with the statutory requirements, and that the failure contributed to the accident. There was no evidence that defendant could not have stopped if plaintiff’s slowing or stopping had been called to his attention earlier. At any rate, whether a turn signal was given, and whether a failure to give it contributed to the accident was a proper question for the jury, and in my judgment the instruction was properly given, since it was intended to protect against this type of accident and the plaintiff is within the protected class, and there is nothing in the record to justify the conclusion that the accident would have occurred had the signal been given. I would therefore affirm.