Court Opinion

ID: 9553321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:27:46.762362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:46.604182
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.,
specially concurring.
The majority opinion says that a jury question exists as to defendant’s negligence because defendant’s wife saw plaintiff stop suddenly. The wife’s perceptions were irrelevant because defendant testified that plaintiff’s ear was already stopped when he first saw it.
I concur in the result because there was evidence that plaintiff’s vehicle stopped short of the normal place at which a vehicle would stop for the intersection with Burnside Street. In doing so, plaintiff stopped at *405an angle in the road blocking both lanes of traffic. This, in my opinion, would make a jury question as to whether plaintiff was negligent. It would also make a jury question as to defendant’s negligence because the jury could have found that upon rounding the curve a reasonably prudent person would not have expected to find someone stopped in plaintiff’s position.