Court Opinion

ID: 9548657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:06:38.048991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:14.817375
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. I think the prevailing opinion gives more credit to the trial judge than the evidence warrants. The plaintiffs offered negative testimony regarding the signs along the highway. They and their *56witnesses simply did not see them. The witnesses for the State testified positively.
The foreman who installed the signs testified that he caused them to be erected during the week between November 14 and and November 21, 1966; that he worked with his men and erected signs as follows: (a) one sign 48 inches by 110 inches white on green reflectorized on the right-hand side of the freeway one mile before exit, which sign read, “End Interstate 1 mile”; (b) next sign black on white reflectorized 48 inches by 110 inches reading, “All traffic must exit”; (c) at the point where three lanes merged into two lanes a black and yellow sign 48 inches by 48 inches reading, “Single lane ahead”; (d) about 700 feet before the exit two signs 48 inches by 60 inches black on yellow reflectorized reading, “Exit 25 m. p. h.”; (e) six chevron signs 48 inches by 96 inches red on white reflectorized on skids about three feet apart reading, “Single lane ahead,” and so arranged as to compel traffic to enter a single lane; (f) in addition to the six chevron signs, one black on yellow reflectorized arrow 48 inches by 96 inches; (g) another chevron sign; and (h) a set of barricades 16 feet long black on white reflectorized about 100 feet behind the chevron signs.
The trooper who investigated the accident was told by Brooks, the truck driver, that there were no signs to advise him that the freeway was ending; and to satisfy himself, the trooper drove down the freeway and back. He testified positively that (a) one mile from exit there was a sign reading, “Freeway ends 1 mile”; (b) one-half mile from exit a sign read, “All traffic must exit”; (c) one-fourth mile from the exit a sign on each side of the lanes of traffic read, “Speed limit 25 m. p. h.”; (d) there were some big red and white chevron signs 4 feet by 8 feet, about 6 feet above the level of the road and placed one behind the other with each extending further into the freeway to force traffic into a single lane, the first one being against the median strip; (e) there were some black and white barricades at the end of the freeway on white posts which had some arrows pointing to the exit; and (f) right at the exit there was a yellow sign with black lettering reading, “25 miles an hour.”
It is difficult for me to see how the State can be found to be negligent at all, but assuming it to be so, I cannot conceive of the conduct of the driver of the truck as being anything but contributorily negligent.
The trial court found as a fact that the following signs were' up:
That reflectors, markers and signs had been placed in various locations on the said freeway for the purpose of notifying and advising motorists of existing roadways and conditions, that at most the signs included “Freeway Ends One *57Mile”, at a point about one mile south • of the off-ramp, “All Traffic Must Exit” about one-half mile south of the off-ramp, two black on Yellow 25 miles per hour speed signs about one-fourth mile from the exit, several red and white chevron channelizing signs, a horizontal black on white unlighted barricades at • or immediately north of the exit, a 25 miles per hour black on yellow exit sign at or immediately south of the exit and a black on yellow arrow at the north edge of the exit.
He then concluded in the next finding 'that such signs failed to give adequate, ■reasonable or sufficient notice of the difficult or dangerous condition which ■existed.
The evidence would require a reversal if the judge meant to find fewer signs than he enumerated. He undoubtedly meant to find that there were at least the number of ■signs which he stated.
There might be a ground to complain if the sign had misled the driver of the truck, such as “Full speed ahead!” but he makes no claim that any sign misled him. He simply claims that he did not see the signs. To me this failure to see is contributory negligence which should defeat 'the claims of the plaintiffs.
I think a driver who drives into a curve -at the end of the freeway at such a rapid ;rate of speed that he turns his vehicle over must be found to be guilty of negligence as a matter of law regardless of whether there were any signs at all. If the freeway did not end, then the driver should not have left it; and if it did end, then the driver should have been driving at such a rate of speed as to control the movements of his truck.
Section 41 — 6—46, U.C.A. 1953, provides:
(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle, or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.
* * * ‡ íjí S|i
(3) The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subdivision (1) of this section, drive at an appropriate reduced speed * * * when approaching and going around a curve, * * *.
This case seems to me to be one of too much speed and not enough looking on the part of the plaintiff driver, either one of which would prevent recovery.
The 270° curve mentioned in the main opinion means nothing unless we know *58the radius of the curve. The picture below shows the curve involved in this matter; and since it is taken from the right-hand' side of the freeway, it accentuates the *59amount of the curve over what it actually was.

*58

*59I would reverse the trial court.