Court Opinion

ID: 9737577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:29:03.027316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:59.995134
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
concurring in result.
I disagree with the repronouncement of a flat and rigid rule that it is negligence, as a matter of law, for a motorist to drive so fast on the highway at night that he cannot stop in time to avoid collision with an object within the area lighted by his headlights. The rule was never intended as an automatic rule of thumb nor a rigid formula to be applied regardless of circumstances. It is already subject to so many exceptions that it is often difficult to tell where the rule ends and the exceptions begin.
Where the exceptions embrace (as they do) those situations where reasonable minds might differ as to whether the motorist was exercising due care under the particular circumstances, it is difficult to justify the retention of the old “general rule.” See, Guynan v. Olson, 178 Neb. 335, 133 N. W. 2d 571; Bartosh v. Schlautman, 181 Neb. 130, 147 N. W. 2d 492.
All sorts of conflicts are apparent in retention of the rule. For example, a motorist driving on the interstate highway at night with low-beam headlights at anything close to the 75-mile per hour speed limit, would be guilty of negligence as a matter of law; while if he is charged with negligence in exceeding the 75-mile speed limit, the jury is simply instructed that violation of the speed limit is not, in and of itself, negligence, but may be evidence of negligence.
It seems obvious that the general rule in its old form no longer fits present circumstances of traffic and. highway regulations.
Spencer, J., joins in this concurrence.