Court Opinion

ID: 9852929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:39:20.103272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:37.878447
License: Public Domain

Judge ORR
dissenting.
The majority, in my opinion, construes the public safety scope of the statute in question too narrowly. There can be no doubt that the statute was designed to protect the motoring public from the hazards incumbent with a car leaving the traveled portion of a highway and striking a fixed object such as a phone booth. However, to limit protection to the motorist in the car and not include the relatively unprotected person utilizing the phone booth is too restrictive an application. Under the majority’s interpretation, a motorist striking a booth that violates the statute would be covered by the statute, but if that driver parked his car and was injured using the phone booth, no protection would exist.
The trial court correctly denied the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict; and, for the above stated reasons, I dissent from the reversal of the trial court’s ruling.