Court Opinion

ID: 9794059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:57:46.285294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:15.298441
License: Public Domain

DORAN, J., Dissenting.
I dissent for the reason that in my opinion there is no evidence whatsoever of any negligence on the part of the defendant. He was operating his automobile at a lawful rate of speed. He had entered and proceeded into the intersection some distance before the signal changed against him. Under such circumstances it was lawful for him to continue through. His automobile was stopped within a car’s length of the point of impact.
If the complicated character of the intersection imposed a greater degree of care, it applied equally to the plaintiff and to the defendant. Plaintiff testified that he saw defendant’s ear three times as it approached him, before he was struck. Assuming, for the sake of argument, but not conceding, that defendant was guilty of negligence even to a small degree, plaintiff’s conduct under the circumstances amounted to contributory negligence.
Defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted.
A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on February 21, 1938.
Curtis, J., voted for a hearing.