Court Opinion

ID: 9506902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:15:26.514078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:10.600125
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CASTLES
(dissenting) :
I dissent. Here two vehicles one a motorcycle the other a Volkswagen, driving a narrow mountain road without lights in the moonlight, collide. Such conduct on the part of both drivers was ill advised; but, hardly, with respect to each other was it reckless or wanton conduct. It may well have been gross negligence with respect to another driver with his headlights on, but here both drivers were equally at fault. In other words, if the defendant Cloud is to be charged with gross negligence or reckless and wanton conduct for his failure to have headlights in operation, then the plaintiffs’ decedent Mallory is equally guilty of the same kind of conduct. Thus, I believe the district court was correct in refusing to instruct on willful and wanton conduct.
I would affirm the judgment for defendant.