Court Opinion

ID: 9737073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:14:41.256319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:56.279925
License: Public Domain

TEIGEN, Chief Judge
(on petition for rehearing).
Again, the majority has correctly stated the question before the court but has failed to answer it. They state the question in their opinion on petition for rehearing, as follows:
“Thus the question is whether the conduct of the defendant’s driver was reasonable in the light of what he would have seen had he maintained a proper lookout.”
They then attempt to answer it by stating:
“When he saw — or should have seen — the other driver negligently failing to yield, as a reasonable person he would have taken steps to avoid the collision.”
However, they have found no facts from which to conclude that an observing driver could have taken effective steps to avoid the collision after the point where he would have seen the other driver was “negligently failing to yield.” Nor, have they found at what point an observing driver would have seen that the other driver was “negligently failing to yield.”
The majority has alluded to two additional facts as additional reasons for their holding, (1) that there was a “junction” sign 500 feet from the intersection; and (2) the highway upon which the defendant’s vehicle was being operated was not a “controlled access” highway, but that it was merely a county highway. Neither of these facts has any bearing on the questions before the court in this case. The record clearly establishes that defendant’s driver was familiar with the highway; he knew the *723intersection, its location, and that it was controlled by “yield” signs and the rights and duties of drivers upon either classification of highway, county or “controlled access” are the same, where “yield” signs are lawfully in place.
This appeal is here'for trial de novo. We are to find the facts. The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove her cause of action. If the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it was not reasonable for an observing driver to have driven the truck under these circumstances as the defendant’s driver drove it, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the injury, the plaintiff has failed to sustain the burden of proof and cannot recover. In my opinion the majority has not found from the evidence facts that establish liability.
In the additional syllabus, numbered 6, added on the opinion on petition for rehearing, the majority says:
“ * * * it is reasonable to assume that * * * he would have slowed * * * when he saw * * * ”
I think this is a fair assumption. However, the syllabus does not establish that such action would have avoided the collision. I think the record in this case establishes it was then too late.
I would grant the rehearing.
KNUDSON, J., concurs.