Court Opinion

ID: 9552093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:04:39.73302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:38.344253
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE DAY
concurs as to point I and dissents as to point II of the opinion:
I concur in part and dissent in part to the majority opinion.
*224While I agree that the case should be retried and plaintiff was entitled to have an instruction on the police department safety rules, the holding in part II of the majority opinion that the court erred in refusing to give an instruction on the presumption of due care because she was suffering from amnesia will create a irreconcilable conflict on retrial.
There can be no presumption of due care in this case on the physical evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom. The photographs show that there are no obstructions in the intersection where this collision occurred. There are open lots and a service station well set back, giving one an unobstructed view of the street on which the police vehicle was traveling. The evidence is not clear as to whether the police car was using its siren or whether a fire truck immediately ahead was sounding any warning device. But there was no doubt from the evidence that the police car was displaying its revolving red light on the roof of the car.
The jury was given proper instructions supported by evidence in this case and backed by settled case law. One was as follows:
“To look in such a manner as to fail to see what must have been plainly visible is to look without a reasonable degree of care and is of no more effect than not to have looked at all.”
T.S.M. Corp. v. Hirth, 172 Colo. 361, 473 P.2d 707 (1970); Union Pacific v. Cogburn, 136 Colo. 184, 315 P.2d 209 (1957); Fabling v. Jones, 108 Colo. 144, 114 P.2d 1100 (1941).
Another instruction on city ordinances included ordinance 503.8-1 as follows:
“503.8-1. Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle displaying at least one lighted red light, or the driver is giving audible signal by siren, exhaust whistle or bell, the driver or operator of every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall immediately drive to a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right hand edge or curb of the roadway, clear of any intersection, on streets where traffic in two directions is permitted, and on one-way streets, to either the right or left-hand curb or edge of the roadway, clear of any intersection, and shall stop and remain in such position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, except when otherwise directed by a police officer.”
There is little doubt plaintiff violated this ordinance because the police car was displaying its emergency lights.
Both instructions were proper on the state of the evidence in the record. They are absolutely irreconcilable with an instruction on the presumption of due care. Such conflicting instructions could not possible make any sense to a jury on retrial.