Court Opinion

ID: 9855760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:30:31.583054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:00.021676
License: Public Domain

OXBERGER, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I do not believe that the defense of legal excuse should be available to a person whose negligence creates the dangerous situation that gives rise to that defense. In *827this case, the defendant was negligent when he did not coast his semi completely off the highway. He misjudged the distance needed for his semi to clear the traveled portion of the highway, and he thus let the trailer extend into the path of oncoming traffic. Defendant’s initial statutory duty to remove his vehicle from the highway when his semi had the power to do so does not disappear just because the semi then had mechanical failure. In Bangs v. Keifer, 174 N.W.2d 372, 376 (Iowa 1970), the court held that one whose own negligence has caused or contributed to a situation which makes it impossible for him to obey the law may not rely upon such conduct as a basis for invoking the legal excuse doctrine.
I also do not believe that defendant’s fear that his alternator would burn out if he used his flashers continuously is adequate justification and legal excuse for his failure to keep the flashers on. The choice between safety to the travelers on 1-80 that night and keeping the alternator from burning out is really no choice at all — lives cannot be replaced, while alternators can be.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.