Court Opinion

ID: 9607531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:59:29.686643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:18.393828
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY MIZUHA, J., WITH WHOM RICHARDSON, C. J., JOINS.
I cannot concur with the court’s opinion that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
In granting a motion for a directed verdict by the defendant on the issue of contributory negligence, “ * * *393the evidence and the inferences which may be fairly drawn from the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed and if the evidence and the inferences viewed in that manner are of such character that reasonable persons in the exercise of fair and impartial judgment may reach different conclusions upon the crucial issue, then the motion should be denied and the issue should be submitted to the jury.’ * * Young v. Price, 48 Haw. 22, 24, 395 P.2d 365, 367; 47 Haw. 309, 313, 388 P.2d 203, 206.
Applying this standard to the ■ evidence, I am of the view that reasonable persons may reach different conclusions as to whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent and the issue should be submitted to the jury.
Plaintiff testified on direct and cross examination as follows:
“Q At the time that you were traveling will you state whether or not you saw any car in the front of you before you hit?
“A No, there was no car in front of me going in the same direction I was going.
“Q And will you state whether or not you saw any car from the other direction coming towards you?
“A Well they might have just come onto Wakea and some were across Kamehameha Avenue or turning the corner there, but there was one or two way down by the corner coming.
******
“Q Now will you state whether you were able to see the road or not?
“A The road was clear. I mean I was able to see the road but the right side, the sun was coming from such an angle that the rays blocked out quite a bit of the right side of the road, but I could see the oncoming traffic.
*394“Q When yon say that the sun’s rays blocked out what do you mean?
“A Well it is so bright and then over there right at that place there is a big clearing right off the side of the road and that is where this trailer and tractor were parked and so the way the sun was shining through made the shadows of the trees covering that area and the trailer seemed to blend right in with the background, grayish looking, kiawe driftwoods and what have you.
“Q You mean color of the -
“A Color of the trailer. There was no unusual color for me to notice.
“Q Did you see anything blinking?
“A No.
******
“Q In other words you are indicating, are you not, that the sun was low?
“A Yes.
“Q And was directly in front of your car as you rounded the bend?
“A No, it was off to the right.1
******
“Q Mrs. Nagata did you see any other vehicles in front of you traveling in the same direction you were traveling in?
“A No, I did not.
“Q Was this because of the sun’s rays?
“A No, not right in front of me, no.
“Q I believe you testified on direct examination and again now you gave an inference that due to the *395sun’s rays you could not see on the right hand side of the road, is that correct?
“A That’s right.
“Q When did this condition start, where was your car at the time that you first found that you could not see on the right hand side of the road because of the sun?
“A As I was turning and after I rounded the bend.
“Q And how far away would that be from the scene of the accident? How far away were you when you [sic] vision was obscured by the sun, from the place where the accident happened?
“A Approximately?
“Q Pardon?
“A Approximately?
“Q Yes, I don’t expect the distance to be exact of course because you were moving at the time, but approximately ?
“THE COURT: Do you understand the question? “A Yes, he wants to know from the point, from where the sun started obscurring [sic] the right side of the road.
“Q Yes, how far away from the scene of the accident, the place where you hit the trailer?
“A Just about this — the depth of this room.
* * * •» * *
“MR. VITOUSEK: May the record show during the recess we measured the distance from the jury box to the end of the courtroom and it is forty-two and one-half feet.
“THE COURT: When you say jury box you mean from where she is sitting?
“MR. VITOUSEK: About from her eye level, her eyes position.
“THE COURT: The record will so show.
* # * * * *
*396“Q Mrs. Nagata, you stated that there are some kiawe trees growing?
“A Yes.
“Q Kiawe trees were growing alongside the road, is that correct?
“A Yes.
******
“Q How tall would you estimate these kiawe trees were?
“THE COURT: Or how high?
“A I couldn’t say. I am not very good at judging distances or the height of anything.
“Q Ten feet, twenty feet, forty feet, fifty, sixty?
“A Oh, I guess anywhere from fifty feet.
“THE COURT: Are you taking into consideration the fact that the length of this courtroom is about forty-two feet? Is that right?
“MR. UEOKA: Yes.
“THE COURT: Keeping that in mind, he is asking you for the height.
“A Well I guess from here about this, some were higher, some are lower, you know kiawe trees grow haphazardly.
“Q Now there was some mention during cross examination about glare of the sun. Now the sun was shining from the right through your windshield, is that correct?
“A Yes.
“Q Now as you were driving along will you state whether or not you were able to see the road?
“A Yes, I was able to see the road.
“Q Were you able to see the entire width of the road? “A Not completely, there were places where there were deep shadows, you know, but . I could see the oncoming traffic and when you drive along you are *397more particularly aware of the oncoming traffic and — well.”
The empty trailer was drawn by a tractor, which was parked at an angle entirely off the highway in the shadows cast by the morning sun. The trailer, a flat bed type, was forty feet long and twenty and one-half feet wide, four feet high in the front and three feet high in the back. The bed of the trailer was six inches thick, dark and dirty or grayish in color and it blended into the surrounding area which was enveloped in shadows. The trailer was parked at an angle off the highway with its left rear comer extending seven feet out over the pavement from the shoulder of the road.
I have no quarrel with the fact that the trailer was not an “inconsiderable object” if it were parked properly on the highway. But I cannot agree with the court that the trailer as it was peculiarly parked on the highway at 7:45 A.M. was a “discernible object” as a matter of law.
The logical inference which may be fairly drawn from plaintiff’s testimony, and other evidence which must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is that the right side of the road was covered by the long shadows cast by abutting trees and foliage from the early morning sun thereby causing the trailer to be not easily discernible, because of its dirty, grayish color and peculiar and unorthodox manner in which it was parked. There were no signs or flags to warn oncoming traffic.
The court’s opinion states that “it does appear clearly from the testimony of plaintiff’s own witness that the scene of the accident was visible from the intersection of Onehee Street with Wakea Avenue, at a distance ranging from 200 to 400 feet,” and that plaintiff’s vision was impaired “actually more than 200 feet.” This conclusion is not sustained by the record.
Plaintiff testified that the distance she traveled between *398the time her vision was impaired and the accident was forty-two and one-half feet. Onehee Street does not appear on Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, but does appear on Defendant’s Exhibit l2 which was not drawn to scale by plaintiff and on which plaintiff shows the scene of the accident soon after the curve in the road past Onehee Street.
The location of the curve with relationship to the scene of the accident cannot be accurately determined on the exhibits in evidence. Defendant’s Exhibit 1 was received for the limited purpose by the trial court for the clarification of plaintiff’s testimony, but not “for the purpose of showing an accurate location of the different streets and the relationship of the distances on the road.” Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 is an accurate scale map of Wakea Avenue running in an easterly direction with, approximately, a four degree curve. Onehee Street does not appear on the scale map. It is located somewhere to the west off the westerly edge of the scale map. The center of the curve on this scale map is 230 feet from the westerly edge of the scale map. Plaintiff did not locate the scene of the accident on this scale map. The only evidence we have placing the scene of the accident with relation to a curve or bend on Wakea is plaintiff’s testimony. Any other testimony as to the scene of the accident with relation to the center of the curve or bend on Wakea Avenue is speculative because the exact location isn’t in the record.
Therefore, when the court’s opinion states that one of the investigating officers testified that “he could see the scene of the accident ‘as soon as [he] passed the last intersection,’ ” [Onehee Street] “which was ‘approximately between 200 and 300 feet, somewhere in there.’ ”, it merely establishes the location of the accident with reference to *399the intersection of Onehee Street and Wakea Avenue but not with reference to the curve or bend as testified to by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the distance that this officer could see after he passed the intersection is an erroneous basis for this court to conclude that plaintiff could have seen as much because the officer came upon the scene at a time considerably later than when plaintiff traveled over the route earlier in the morning and the angle of the sun and light conditions had changed. Likewise, it can be generally assumed that it is easier to see an automobile wrecked on the highway when you are called to investigate an accident as compared to plaintiff’s situation where there was only a trailer bed six inches thick unexpectedly protruding seven feet on the highway at 7:25 A.M. This officer placed the scene of the accident between 200 to 300 feet from the intersection of Wakea Avenue and Onehee Street. Although the exact center of the curve as testified to by plaintiff is not located on the scale map, the distance from the middle of the curve or bend on Wakea Avenue as it actually exists on the scale map (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1) to the [western] edge of said map toward Onehee Street is 230 feet. If inferences are to be fairly drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the statement of this officer who places the scene of the accident between 200 and 300 feet from the intersection of Wakea Avenue and Onehee Street tends to corroborate plaintiff’s testimony as to the scene of the accident being approximately 42% feet after the bend or curve on Wakea Avenue.
Another investigating officer placed the scene of the accident at approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Onehee Street with Wakea Avenue. This also tends to corroborate plaintiff’s testimony as indicated above.
The driver of the tractor-trailer located the scene of the accident on Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, which is drawn to *400scale, at a point approximately 370 feet from the middle of the curve or bend, or a total of 600 feet from the left [western] edge of the map towards Onehee Street. When asked how he arrived at that location of the accident, he stated “Well I am looking back at Kamehameha, that is the reason why. I knew Onehee Street, approximately from Onehee Street and I had traveled I would say about three or four hundred feet when I pulled over to the side from Onehee Street so now I am looking back from Kamehameha Avenue back. That is the reason why I am trying to mark off about three quarters of the roadway.”
He further testified that “I seen the car about three or four hundred feet in back, this fourth car, and how long does it take to travel three or four hundred feet, could have been a couple of seconds.” Emphasis supplied. He contradicts himself as to the distance, but if his testimony is to be accepted as to the lapse of time — a couple of seconds — then the plaintiff’s car could have been only 58 feet away at 20 miles per hour, which would seem to corroborate plaintiff’s testimony that her vision was impaired for a distance of 42% feet.
Plaintiff’s husband testified: “* * * it seemed to me the sun was pretty bright as we turned the corner and since I wasn’t driving the car I turned my head sideways to look out of the car and as I did and as we made the turn I noticed an object on the road and so I yelled to my wife to watch out and then the next thing when I came to I was laying on the front seat * *
If we are to employ the test laid down by this court in Young v. Price, supra, the foregoing evidence and the inference fairly drawn therefrom places the scene of the accident right after the bend or curve on Wakea Avenue as testified to by the plaintiff, closer to forty-tAvo and one-half feet rather than 200 to 400 feet.
The court’s opinion departs from the rule laid down in *401Young v. Price, supra, that “the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed * * It attempts to justify the ruling of the lower court by arguing against plaintiff’s testimony as follows:
First. “* * * She acquiesced in the characterization of the bend as being ‘gradual’ and conceded that there was nothing to obstruct her view across the bend and along Wakea Avenue beyond the scene of the accident to Kamehameha Avenue.” This statement fails to note that plaintiff testified that “the road was clear. I mean I was able to see the road but the right side the sun coming from such an angle that ‘the rays blocked out quite a bit of the right side of the road, but I could see the oncoming traffic.’ ” Plaintiff’s vision was impaired as to the right side of Wakea Avenue.
Second. “* * * She admitted that she ‘was not very good at judging distances or the length of anything.’ She felt that driving at a speed of twenty to twenty-five miles an hour she would have been able to stop her car within this same distance of the length of the courtroom (42' 6"). It would then appear that Mrs. Nagata would have been able to stop in time had not her vision been impaired by the sun for the whole distance in which the tractor-trailer combination was visible under the conditions of the terrain, which she estimated at 42' 6", but which actually was more than 200 feet.” This statement assumes that the tractor-trailer combination was parked on the highway. The facts clearly indicate that just a portion of the trailer bed, sis inches thick was parked at an angle, protruding seven feet on the highway. Likewise, I am at a loss as to how this court can conclude, as a matter of law, that the portion of the trailer was visible to the plaintiff for actually more than 200 feet in view of the testimony of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s husband, the driver of the *402tractor-trailer and the investigating officer. In doing so the court departs from the rule adopted in Young v. Price, supra, and considers the evidence and the inferences which may be fairly drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who makes the motion for a directed verdict. Emphasis supplied.
The court’s opinion dismisses the question of negligence of the defendant “as such negligence is assumed.” But in this case “* * * the question- of plaintiff’s contributory negligence is so inextricably entwined with and dependent on the issue of defendants’ negligence * * Young v. Price, supra at 25. “Usually, negligence and contributory negligence cannot be separated with scalpellic precision.” Gaines v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, 62 Wash.2d 45, 48, 380 P.2d 863, 866. “Negligence and contributory negligence are not easily separated with precision and contributory negligence ordinarily cannot be determined without reference to the primary negligence of the defendant.” Kelley v. Bruch,......Idaho......, 415 P.2d 693, 697.
In Farrow v. Ostrom, 10 Wash.2d 666, 667, 117 P.2d 963, 964, the court said:
“* * * The questions of negligence and contributory negligence are usually so intimately related that the latter cannot be determined without reference to the former. Hines v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 105 Wash. 178, 177, P. 795. There is no more justification for the court to hold a plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law than there is to hold a defendant guilty of negligence as a matter of law. Richmond v. Tacoma R. & Power Co., 67 Wash. 444, 122 P. 351. * * *»
The record before us presents a genuine issue of fact— whether a dirty, grayish empty trailer whose flat bed was only six inches thick and three feet high in the rear parked at an angle off the highway with its left rear corner ex*403tending seven feet on the pavement just past a curve or bend in the highway at a time when one-half of the highway was covered by long shadows was a “discernible object,” and whether it created some risk or hazard to other approaching drivers on the highway. Furthermore, in such a situation, whether defendant was required to take steps commensurate with the danger created to warn and protect approaching drivers on the highway. Likewise, it is evident that under these circumstances, the conflict in the evidence relative to “the use or non-use of a warning light, the presence or non-presence of one of the employes with flags to guide oncoming traffic * * * the color of the trailer, whether it was yellow or dark or dirty in color or grayish are factual questions for the jury.”
In view of the foregoing, it is impossible to conclude that the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and the inferences viewed in that manner are of such a character that reasonable persons in the exercise of fair and impartial judgment may not reach different conclusions upon the issue of contributory negligence.
I Avould reverse and remand for a new trial.

 After the curve, plaintiff was traveling east. At 7:45 A.M. the sun was 6% degrees above the horizon, and 25 degrees south of east. At 7:50 A.M. the sun was 7% degrees above the horizon and 25% degrees south of east.

 Plaintiff drew a sketch of the scene of the accident showing all the streets coming into Wakea Avenue. Defendant introduced the sketch into evidence.