Court Opinion

ID: 9671906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:45:07.092009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:12.930257
License: Public Domain

GRIMSON, Judge
(dissenting),
I am unable to concur in the opinion of the majority of the court. My conclusion from the' evidence- is that the plaintiff was guilty of -contributory negligence.
The evidence shows that the plaintiff had been following .the defendant going east on U. S. Highway No. 10, east of Jamestown, at about the same speed and .about a block distant. On approaching Eckelson, where the defendant claims he was intending to turn north on a crossroad, plaintiff saw the defendant apply his brakes and slow down. Plaintiff then gained on defendant and approached within 85. feet of defendant’s car. Plaintiff then applied his brakes but almost immediately released- them. Before that, however, he had seen defendant’s car swer.ve north" across the center line of the highway and back- again. He had also seen a car approaching- from the east. He testifies :
“Q. You could see, and you saw, that he was starting to turn left, that -is going toward the center of the road? A. Yes.
“Q. You knew then that there was something unusual when you saw him apply his brakes and start to turn? A. I didn’t know what he had in his mind.
Q. But you saw him do that, didn’t you? A. Yes. , * * *
“Q. Then how lorig did you travel while your brakes were applied? A. It wasn’t very" far.
“Q. How far in your best judgment? A. 10 feet.
“Q. Did you apply your brakes hard? A. No.
“Q. Just easy? A. Yes. .
“Q. Then you let them up again? A. I let them up because I thought it would be clear sailing, that is what I figured.
“The Court: How is that?
“Witness: I figured I had clear going.
“Q. (By Mr. McCurdy) You saw this car coming from the east, didn’t you? A. Yes. There was more of them coming, too.
“Q. There was one in particular that — A. I wasn’t watching that close because I was watching my car.
“Q. You- weren’t watching the car' coming from the east? A. That-didn’t bother me. I had my right-of-way, and that car was coming the right way.”
Then follows the" testimony set out in the majority opinion -hereby -referred to.
In Bagg v. Otter Tail Power Co., 70 N.D. 704, 297 N.W. 774, 778, the court says:
“The standard to be used in determining whether or not a plaintiff has been guilty of such contributory negligence as will defeat a recovery is whether the actions of the plaintiff were those of an ordinarily prudent person under the same circumstances and in the same position, Heckman v. Evenson, 7 N.D. 173, 73 N.W. 427. See, also, Morrison v. Lee, 16 N.D. 377, 113 N.W. 1025, 13 L.R.A.,N.S., 650.”
The evidence : shows that .the- plaintiff, when he was 85 feet.back of defendant’s car,. *301saw thé defendant driving his car in the middle of the highway, wavering as to whether he was turning north or back into the right lane of the highway ahead of plaintiff. Plaintiff also saw the car coming from the east on its right side of the highway and it must have been very cióse because the plaintiff had only traveled 73 of the, 85 feet he was behind defendant’s car when that car and the defendant’s car collided. It should have been clear to the plaintiff that defendant would either turn north and risk collision with the closely approaching west bound car or turn into the right lane in front of plaintiff.
Plaintiff, however, paid no attention to those two cars but released his brake and sailed forward at 35 miles per hour, watching only his car, until the first collision happened when he was only 12 feet behind defendant’s car. Because the plaintiff had not been watching the cars before him and had driven up so close he had gotten himself into a perilous position. To get so close to another car under the circumstances was contrary to Section 39-1009, NDRC 1943, which provides:
• “The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable- and prudent, having due regard to the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and condition of the highwáy.”'
After the fir§t collision defendant’s car recoiled diagonally, .to. the southwest into the path, of the onnjshing car of the plaintiff. The defendant’s right, rear bumper and fender .bumped, into the plaintiff’s left, front fender and wheel causing the damage complained of.
It is contended that the plaintiff had a right to be there as he had the right of way and that he did not have to anticipate any hazardous situation that might occur. That would be true had there been no circumstances to warn him that danger might ensue. It is not sufficient to have the right of way nor to rely on the presumption that everybody will obey the rules of the road. Even if the driver has the right of way he may not wholly disregard other cars on the highway. The driver of an automobile must pay attention to the traffic and to the situation existing at that particular time. On seeing circumstances on the highway thát might develop into danger he must use all care to avoid trouble. It is still his duty to take every reasonable precaution to avoid' a collision with another automobile even if such automobile was violating the rules of the road.
The circumstances hereinbefore set out as to the manner of the defendant’s driving, from ydiich the plaintiff said he could not tell \yhat the defendant was going to dp, and the close approach of the west bound car were circumstances' which should have put him on .notice, that he might not have a clear right of way. Under the circumstances here I do not believe the actions of the plaintiff were those of an ordinarily prudent man. Such a man would watch the cars ahead of him and remain far enough behind to keep out of trouble. The plaintiff - could' have done that. He neglected his duty in that respect.
In 5 Am.Jur., Automobiles, Sec. 298, p. 667, it,is said that if the driver of an automobile on approaching, an intersection “has reason to think that because .of the other driver’s negligence he will not- be accorded the right of way, it becomes his duty to do what he can to avoid collision, as by stopping or turning aside, failure to, do which is contributory negligence.” See also Zettle v. Lutovsky, 72 N.D. 331, 7 N.W.2d 180 and cases cited. 27 A.L.R. Annotation VI, p. 509.
In Bagg v. Otter Tail Power Co., 70 N.D. 704, 297 N.W. 774, Par. 4 of the Syllabus by this court reads:
“Even though the defendant is shown to have been guilty of negligence, no recovery can be had by plaintiff when the injury is due to the negligence of both parties.” , ■
Even if defendant’s negligence caused'the first collision that does not relieve the plaintiff from his own negligence in failing to pay attention to the traffic ahead of'him,releasing his brakes and driving? 'within 12 *302feet of defendant’s car. Had plaintiff not driven ahead sp fast the second collision would not have happened. Clearly the negligence of the plaintiff in that respect contributed to the second collision. That negligence was the proximate cause of the second collision. Neither party.should recover. The case should be dismissed;