Court Opinion

ID: 9679183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:43:38.654219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:11.070150
License: Public Domain

Newton, J.,
dissenting.
I join in the dissent of Spencer, J.
Negligence is ordinarily defined as “doing something *514which an. ordinary, prudent person would not have done under similar circumstances, or failing to do something which an ordinary, prudent person would have done under similar circumstances.”
In this instance, defendant Poppert saw plaintiff start to move out into the arterial highway. He started to follow but before entering the arterial highway, he glanced to the left and right to ascertain that it was clear of oncoming traffic. In the small fraction of time that it took him to do this, the plaintiff unexpectedly stopped a second time and before defendant Poppert could observe what she had done and stop his automobile, he had made slight contact with the rear of plaintiff’s automobile. Had plaintiff moved on out into the arterial highway and defendant Poppert followed without looking for approaching traffic, in the event of an accident, he would have been held guilty of negligence as a matter of law. It appears to me that he did no more than what an ordinary, prudent person would have done under the same circumstances and the majority opinion completely overlooks the fact that occasionally accidents can and do happen without negligence on the part of either party. At the very least, these facts are sufficient to present a jury question and the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.