Court Opinion

ID: 9641032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:21:29.184456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:34.609598
License: Public Domain

HENLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
I am inclined to agree that plaintiffs did not make a submissible humanitarian case on failure to stop or failure to swerve, but cannot agree that plaintiffs made a submis-sible case on failure to slacken speed.
*545The evidence is that the right front portion of the braking-slowing station wagon and the right front tire of the tractor came into collision when only the left front tire portion of the station wagon was out of the tractor’s lane of the highway. There is no evidence of the speed of the station wagon at any point on the highway within the 100 feet of the point of collision. We know that it was less, and became progressively less, than 50-55 miles per hour, because that was its speed before it started laying down 100 feet of tire marks. Nor is there any evidence of the speed of the tractor at any given point of distance from the point of collision during the period of time it took the station wagon to travel this 100 feet. In these circumstances a conclusion that any slackening of the tractor’s speed would have permitted the station wagon to escape would be the result of speculation and conjecture. These facts do not, in my opinion, present an “almost escaping” case.
For these reasons, I withdraw my concurrence and respectfully dissent.