Court Opinion

ID: 9540361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:15:03.547304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:43.177740
License: Public Domain

Hill, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.
When the motorist first saw the pedestrian moving across the highway in the outside lane, the pedestrian was in a position of peril, but he apparently extricated himself from that position by stopping.' Had he been hit before he stopped *373or while standing in the outside lane, the last clear chance doctrine would have applied.
When the pedestrian stopped, the motorist was required to avoid a collision with him by either stopping or going around him. The motorist elected to meet that duty by going around the pedestrian, and to do that he had to take his eyes momentarily off the pedestrian, who was then standing still in the outside lane. When the pedestrian moved forward to the inside lane, he again placed himself in a position of danger, and this time the last clear chance doctrine did not apply, because the motorist did not see him in time to avoid hitting him.
Donworth, J., concurs for the reasons stated by Hill, J.