Court Opinion

ID: 9702113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:54:59.95241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:33.763566
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I agree that the ordinary intersectional automobile collision case presents questions of fact on the issues of negligence and contributory negligence; but I believe the present case is an exception to the general rule and that the trial court was required to rule that plaintiff’s own testimony established contributory negligence on her part as a matter of law. Taking this view, I am not concerned with the question of the defendant’s negligence.
According to plaintiff’s own testimony she was traveling at 25 miles an hour and reduced her speed to 18 or 20 miles an hour as she approached the intersection, and looked both ways and saw no approaching traffic ; as she entered the intersection she saw defendant’s automobile approaching on her right about 30 or 40 feet away “coming’ fast”; she did not apply her brakes or change her direction or speed, but proceeded across the intersection because she thought she “was safe.”
In short, plaintiff saw defendant’s automobile 30 or 40 feet away, coming at a fast rate, and made no effort whatever to avoid the collision, placing the whole burden of preventing the accident on defendant. The driver of an automobile is under a duty to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, and in my judgment plaintiff’s testimony established beyond question that she failed to use such care. I would affirm.
One further point requires comment. Coupled with the motion for judgment n. o. v. was a motion in the alternative for a new trial. The trial court should have acted on both motions and it appears that it did so act, granting the motion for new trial in the event the judgment n. o. v. was reversed, but by later order struck out the reference to its previous action on the motion for new trial. As the record now stands no action has been taken on the motion for new trial. If the judgment n. o. v. is to be reversed, it should be with direction to the trial court to consider and act upon the motion for new trial.1

. See Crusade v. Capital Transit Co., D.C.Mun.App., 63 A.2d 878, 8 A.L.R.2d 229; Cox v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, D.C.Mun.App., 120 A.2d 214; Reading v. Faucon, D.C.Mun.App., 134 A.2d 376; Ackerhalt v. Smith, D.C.Mun.App., 141 A.2d 187.