Court Opinion

ID: 9722803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:50:58.016047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:40.332299
License: Public Domain

STRUTZ, Judge.
I concur. Where the trial court finds no conflict in the evidence, and bases his decision to grant a new trial largely on the fact that the plaintiff’s driver violated the provisions of section 39-10-11, N.D.C.C., which requires a driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle going in the same direction, when not in a business or residential district, to give warning with his horn before attempting to pass such vehicle, I believe that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial. Failure to give such warning is not negligence as a matter of law, but is only evidence of negligence to be considered by the jury. Gravseth v. Farmers Union Oil Company of Minot, 108 N.W.2d 785 (N.D.); Erdahl v. Hegg, 98 N.W.2d 217 (N.D.); Glatt v. Feist, 156 N.W.2d 819 (N.D.).
Whether such violation was negligence was therefore a question for the jury to determine, for this evidence was before them for their consideration, and they considered it in arriving at their verdict.