Court Opinion

ID: 9628736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:30:45.654826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:29.274907
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring).
Appeal from a judgment based on a jury-verdict of no cause of action.
The crux of this case revolves around one instruction given by the court supplemented by interrogatories presented to the jury. The jury decided six to two in favor of Clayson. Had this writer been on the jury, he is inclined to the conclusion reached by the two dissenting jurors. But that cannot substitute for our jury system.
This was an intersection' collision. Clay-son whs traveling south at 25 to 35 miles per hour'on a street that intersected with one upon which Badger was traveling east at right angles and within the lawful speed. The intersection was a so-called “blind” one, since Clayson’s approach on his street, which was considerably uphill, was such as to obscure eastbound traffic because of an embankment, house and foliage, and vice versa, with respect to Badger. An electric semaphore controlled the intersection.
This case is to be canvassed in a light more favorable to the one prevailing and needs no repetition of such cliché by citation of previous pronouncements.
We start out with a concession by everyone that this intersection was quite hazardous. Clayson negligently entered it on an amber light and was in the intersection on a red light when the impact took place. It appears that thereafter Badger was in there on a green light. Question is whether, with a possible green light in his favor, prudently he could travel through at a legal rate of speed, without slowing down below that speed and without looking to his left, •which he admitted he did not do.
The trial court instructed that “There is imposed upon a driver to be aware of the relative positions and speeds of vehicles approaching and he must recurrently reob-serve and reappraise in the light of the consistent changing conditions of a fluid traffic situation.” There seems to be no harm in such an instruction in the ordinary intersection case, and could be under the circumstances here where the plaintiff knew the intersection was very dangerous, did not slow down, conceded that he did not look, and entered the intersection after the defendant had entered it, but here the intersection was unusual where neither driver could see the other coming until he got to or in the intersection. Both of the drivers knew of the dangerous and hazardous nature of this particular “blind” intersection, —and both, knowing of this, with the split-minute change in mechanical semaphore signals, may have had a duty to slow down below the posted speed limits. Neither did.
*334The physical facts appear to me to indicate that perhaps look or not, Badger hardly could have avoided the incident at the rate he was traveling. The jury, as fact-finders, in whom our system reposes this function, after six hours of deliberation, thought otherwise, on facts that were not so clear and conclusive as to require reversal for caprice or as a matter of law
This is a very close case. It points up the confusion that sometimes likewise points up a need for caution in the employment of special verdicts. This writer thinks the general verdict advisable in most cases, where possible. Nonetheless, the procedure of the trial courts, under our own rules, is perfectly within their rights and duties if they use the special verdict approach. Some cases demand it, but it appears that the intended use of such proscriptive procedure may he overworked.
We cannot say that the jury was capricious in this case because it said Badger, under the particular facts here, did not keep a proper outlook, but I would venture a guess that there may have been a different conclusion, under a general verdict.
The jury in answering the questions, did not say Clayson ran a red light, but only that he was in the intersection when the light turned red. Also, that Badger did not look to the left at a hazardous intersection, (of which the parties conceded they were aware). It is difficult to distinguish this case from Larson v. Evans,1 but at least there is some difference: In the latter case the plaintiff did see the defendant’s car before either entered the intersection, whereas the plaintiff in the instant case admitted that he did not even look. In the Larson case, the plaintiff took evasive action. The plaintiff here took none.
This is a very close case, and reluctantly I concur for the observations hereinabove stated only, and not because of any curative effect of other instructions as stated in the main opinion.

. 12 Utah 2d 245, 364 P.2d 1088.