Court Opinion

ID: 9663720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:49:18.669267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:19.543097
License: Public Domain

Newton, J.,
dissenting.
Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident occurring on a graveled road on the outskirts of Kearney, Nebraska. The defendant Moreno was operating a truck which ran out of gas early in the evening and which was permitted to stand on the highway, without flares, until the accident occurred several hours later. That defendants were negligent is apparent. The only question is whether or not the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, barring his right to recover as a matter of law. I find that he was and consequently disagree with the majority opinion.
The undisputed evidence reflects that two police officers observed the parked truck in the northbound *677traffic lane and parked their patrol car with lights on low beam two or three car lengths north of the truck but in the southbound lane. The lights of the patrol car illuminated the truck. Plaintiff approached from the south. His approach was observed by the officers. One of the officers, in full uniform, ran down the road toward plaintiff waving a flashlight. The distance he covered is somewhat problematical but it is clear that he was in the area lighted not only by the lights of the patrol car but also by those of the plaintiff’s automobile. Plaintiff was traveling at a speed variously estimated at from 40 to 55 miles per hour. He struck the rear of the truck and drove it ahead two car lengths. He states he failed to see the officer with the flashlight and failed to hear the officer yell as he was passed although plaintiff’s window was partially open. Plaintiff did not slow down. Plaintiff further states that when still 2 or 3 blocks away he ascertained that the patrol car with its headlights on was not moving. A parked car, after dark, ordinarily dictates a cautious approach as it may indicate an accident, a highway blockage, or people on the highway. Plaintiff denies that he was blinded by the lights of the patrol car and states: “Q
So you could see what was in front of you, is that correct?
A They was bright lights, yes.
Q And they were impairing your vision, were they not? A If I had looked to the front, yes.
Q Didn’t you look at them to see that they were bright, Mr. McClellen?
A Yes, and then I looked to the side rather than stare them down.
Q You are not trying to tell this jury that you drove six blocks looking down at a gravel ridge, are you?
A I looked to the road, to the front of me, to the bank where my dim lights were showing the road and the bank ahead of me, yes.
*678Q Your lights shone in the road the direction your car was headed, didn’t they?
A Yes, to the front and side. * * *
Q And you could see the glare ahead of you and it obscured your vision of the road, did it not?
A It obscured the vision of the road on — if I had looked into the beam of the light, but not to the front of me and to the side, no.
Q The beam was coming right down the road, wasn’t it, sir?
A Not to the direction I was looking, no.
Q The direction you were looking was to the right side?
A To the right and forward, side of the road, yes.”
It is apparent that plaintiff was also negligent. He failed to decrease speed and approach the parked patrol car with any degree of caution. He either failed to see or ignored the police officer in plain view in the roadway with the flashlight and also ignored the warning shout. By his own statements he makes it clear that he was not watching the road ahead but was looking to the side and he failed to see the truck which was at least partially illuminated by the lights of the patrol car.
This court has frequently held that: “As a general rule it is negligence as a matter of law for a motorist to drive an automobile on a highway in such a manner that he cannot stop in time to avoid a collision with a a object within the range of his vision.” O’Conner v. Kientz, 184 Neb. 554, 168 N. W. 2d 703.
In the present case we are not dependent upon the “range of vision rule.” “The driver of a motor vehicle has a duty to keep a proper lookout and watch where he is driving even though he is driving on the side of the highway where he has a lawful right to be. He must keep a lookout ahead or in the direction of travel or in the direction from which others may be expected to approach and to know what is in front of him for a *679reasonable distance.” Willey v. Parriott, 179 Neb. 828, 140 N. W. 2d 652.
Here the plaintiff concedes that he was not watching the road ahead of him. As a result he failed to see the officer attempting to warn him of danger, failed to see the parked truck, and crashed into it with little if any diminution of speed. Certainly, one who completely fails to watch where he is driving is much more guilty of negligence as a matter of law than one who simply drives at a speed that prevents his stopping in time to avoid an object within his range of vision.
Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.