Court Opinion

ID: 3301219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 17:17:34.430804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:50.803782
License: Public Domain

A rehearing is asked for in this case because of the claimed incorrectness of the following statement in the opinion:
"The necessity for the driver of a motor vehicle to signal before turning, and particularly before turning to the left, is so great, and the practice of signaling in such a case is so universal and so relied upon, that there is no room for a reasonable difference of opinion as to the conduct of a driver who fails to signal without making certain that there is no one behind him. He is guilty of negligence and the court is justified in so charging the jury."
We are satisfied as to the correctness of this statement as applied to the facts of the particular case, where the motor truck, whose sudden turning from its course to the left caused the collision, was proceeding along a street of a large city, where the coming up of vehicles behind it was always to be anticipated, and therefore necessarily guarded against, and there was nothing to relieve the driver of his obligation to exercise care in this respect. The statement was, however, not intended as one of universal application, and it is not difficult to conceive of cases to which it would not be at all applicable.
Rehearing denied.
All the Justices concurred, except Wilbur, J., who did not vote. *Page 29