Court Opinion

ID: 8037463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 03:22:35.302892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:37:11.550298
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
dissenting.
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion in this case. The sole question to be determined, in a final analysis of the case, is the location of the motor vehicles involved at the time of the accident.
The positive evidence of six witnesses who examined the pavement is that all marks from the bus and the automobile involved in the accident lead back to a point south of the center line of the highway, the side of the highway being traveled by defendant’s bus. For instance, Dewey Waychoff, a farmer living near the scene of the accident, and called by the plaintiff as a witness, testified: “Q. These scratches that you observed, were they in the snow or what? A. They were in the pavement and snow. * * * Q. Did you notice just where the west end of this scratch began? A. Yes; I saw south of the black line they started. * * * Q. How far was the first scratch you noticed from the center lines? A. You mean how far south or over the black line? Q. Yes; if you know. A. Oh, I would say five *117or six inches over.” John R. Burrows, the county coroner, testified as follows: “Q. What examination did you make? * * * A. I examined the pavement. Q. What marks did you see there on the pavement, Mr. Burrows? * * * A. There were different marks on the highway, or scratches on the highway. Q. In which direction were they from the automobile? A. They were in a southwesterly direction from the automobile. Q. Did you notice where they led? A. Yes. Q. Where did they lead? A. To a portion of the pavement directly south of the black line painted on the pavement. * * * Q. How far (south) of the south black line were these marks that led over to the car? A. Approximately one foot.” Kenneth Rhoades, state highway patrolman, testified: “The marks led from the north side of the pavement where the debris was off the shoulder, in a circle, a trifle of a circle, southwesterly direction over and just beyond the tar, the center tar' stripe on the highway.” Three employees of the defendant testified to the same facts as the foregoing witnesses. The only testimony produced to meet this evidence is that of two witnesses who stated that they observed no marks on the south half of the pavement. They did not testify that they looked for marks, nor to any other fact that would indicate that the evidence was other than the result of a failure to observe. This being true, the physical facts are not disputed and should control the result of the litigation. With the physical facts established, it is clear that plaintiff’s driver turned across the center line to pass the snowplow into the path of the bus coming from the opposite direction.
The bus driver testified that he was driving on the right side of the highway, and as he was passing the snowplow, the car in which plaintiff was riding loomed up in the storm directly in his path. Harold J. Davis, a merchant of Tama, Iowa, and a passenger on the bus, testified that the bus was on the right side of the highway and that plaintiff’s car darted over in front of it. Mrs. Emma Cox of Marshalltown, Iowa, also a passenger on the bus, testified that, before the bus had cleared the snowplow, “the car *118tried to pass the snowplow, and it swerved around the snowplow, coming directly on the south side towards the car, or the bus.” W. P. Cox of Huron, South Dakota, also a passenger on the bus, testified as follows: “Q. Now, as I understand you, you saw a black object about the time the bus and snowplow met? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where was it? A. Well, it appeared from behind the snowplow and swung out. Q. Had you seen it before the bus and snowplow met ? A. No, sir; I had not. Q. Could you see as they met which way it was headed? A. It was headed across the road, towards the bus; yes, sir.” The evidence of these disinterested witnesses is not only very convincing, but it is in line with the undisputed physical facts established in the record.
The only evidence in the record that supports the finding of the jury is that of plaintiff herself. She says that the bus was on the wrong side of the road when the accident occurred. Her testimony is impeached by at least three other witnesses. The record shows that Arthur L. Bye, court reporter of the Eighteenth judicial district of Iowa, took a statement from plaintiff the day following the accident, and testified that a part of it was as follows: “Q. Just prior to the collision, you were asleep, you say? A. I think I probably must have been. I don’t remember anything, only I know it was snowing and blowing terribly, but I do remember seeing this snowplow ahead of us there, at that time or one other time, I don’t remember now which it was. Q. But you do remember seeing it just ahead of you? A. No. Q. Prior to the collision? A. I don’t remember seeing anything or anything about the collision.” The coroner, Mr. Burrows, also testified that plaintiff told him that she was probably asleep. The highway patrolman Rhoades testified that the day after the accident he went to the hospital to interview plaintiff. His version is reported in the record as follows: “Q. Did you see Thelma Hill? A. I did. * * * Q. What was she doing? A. Smoking a cigarette, when I first went in. Q. Did you observe her .as you talked to her, as to whether she seemed to be bright ? *119A. She talked bright, yes, sir, when I observed her.” “Q. Did you ask her to tell you what she knew about the accident? A. Yes, sir; I did. Q. And what did she say to you in reply? A. She said that at the time of the accident she was either dozing or sleeping, and that she knew nothing about it.”
I submit, therefore, that the undisputed physical facts require us to hold for the defendant. But, in addition thereto, we have the evidence of all the disinterested eyewitnesses who reconstruct the accident in conformity with the undisputed physical facts. And, in addition to all this, plaintiff’s testimony as to how the accident occurred, upon which the verdict must rest if it is to be sustained, is impeached to such an extent that it is not worthy of belief. In my opinion, the evidence preponderates in favor of the defendant as a matter of law, and the judgment should be reversed.