Court Opinion

ID: 9628737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:30:45.661231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:10.696743
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Justice
(dissenting).
Under the particular circumstances of this case, the plaintiff’s proceeding with a green light and his inability to perceive approaching vehicles because of the physical characteristics of the intersection, the disputed instruction imposed a duty far beyond the magnitude of reasonable and ordinary care to avoid a collision. In order to comply with the duty imposed by the instruction, the plaintiff would be compelled to stop at the intersection, on a green signal, and observe the cross street for approaching traffic. This- duty is at an obvious variance of that of acting as a reasonably prudent man under the circumstances
The facts of this case are substantially similar to those in Larson v. Evans.1 In *335that case the defendant failed to observe a stop sign and collided with a vehicle in the intersection. The plaintiff had the right of way, and the drivers were unable to see each other until shortly before entering the intersection because of the obstruction created by a dense hedge. The jury rendered a verdict of no cause of action. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for new trial because it observed that the plaintiff could have and should have stopped, short of impact, had he been watching to the right and had he taken cognizance of the approach of the defendant’s car at twice his own speed and giving no sign at any point of intending to slow down or stop for the stop sign.
This court stated:
This reasoning misconceives the duty which a driver having the right of way normally has in keeping a proper lookout for other drivers who, to his knowledge, are under a legal obligation to bring their vehicles to a stop. The reasoning is applicable in a situation where the driver having the right of way has, or should have, become aware that the other vehicle is not going to stop. The proper rule is stated in Johnson v. Maynard:2
“A traveler approaching a signal-controlled intersection with the light in her favor has the right of way and can rely on it until something appears to indicate it is not safe to do so.”
In the instant case, Instruction No. 17, under the unusual circumstances, was prejudicial to the plaintiff. This case should be reversed and remanded.

. 12 Utah 2d 245, 248, 364 P.2d 1088, 1090 (1961).

. 9 Utah 2d 268, 342 P.2d 884, 885.