Court Opinion

ID: 9624576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:09:49.575181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:50.225137
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Groves
specially concurring:
Instruction No. 3 set forth the provisions of the following sections in C.R.S. 1963, 13-5:
§ 44, which relates to following too closely;
§ 48(3), which provides that the signal given on sudden decrease of speed should be in the manner provided in § 49 and § 50;
§ 49, which provides that the signals referred to in § 48 may be given by hand and arm as provided in § 50 or by signal lamp or signal device;
§ 50, which provides that the signal on stop or decreased speed shall be with hand and arm extended downward. The instruction ended with a statement that violation of “any of the above statutes by either party of this suit would constitute negligence per se * *
I think there was no error in instructing the jury as to the law set forth in these sections and, in any event, this would not be prejudicial to the plaintiff. However, I think it was error, after quoting the method of giving a hand and arm signal as prescribed by statute, to instruct that violation of “any of the above statutes” would constitute negligence as a matter of law. I can perceive that a jury might conclude from this that the judge was instructing them that there was a statutory duty upon the plaintiff to give a hand and arm signal. As the plaintiffs brake lights were on and observed by the defendant, an instruction containing the provisions *235of § 48, § 49 and § 50 should not have had the “negligence per se” provision.
Therefore, while disagreeing with the majority view that there was error in advising the jury of the provisions of § 50,1 concur in the result.