Court Opinion

ID: 9573337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:52:48.869506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:36.469472
License: Public Domain

Fromme, J.,
dissenting: The first appearance of this case in this court is recorded in Gardner v. Pereboom, 194 Kan. 231, 398 P. 2d 293. In that case this court reversed the trial court, after a trial of the issues, for the reason that the trial court consolidated the action by the driver of the Gardner car with the action of a passenger in *196the Gardner car. This court held that separate actions with separate plaintiffs could not be consolidated under the provisions of G. S. 1949, 60-765 unless all plaintiffs had an interest in the subject of the actions and in the relief demanded.
On a return of the cases to the trial court the driver of the Gardner car dismissed his case. The passenger in the Gardner car prosecuted his action against the defendant Pereboom. A jury awarded substantial damages. The trial court in the process of the trial determined that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
The court submitted the case to the jury on the sole issue of damages. The defendant appealed and a majority of this court feels that the case should be sent back for a third trial. I respectfully dissent.
The court should be certain that the errors complained of require a reversal in the interest of justice. This corut had little difficulty in determining that the other trial errors, which concerned matters of evidence, failed to constitute error. The directing of a verdict except on the issue of damages remained as the one trial error requiring reversal.
The facts set forth in the majority opinion are those most favorable to defendant. The defendant was proceeding south on Hillside Avenue. The car in which plaintiff was riding was proceeding north on Hillside. The traffic control at this intersection turned green and defendant made a left turn in the face of oncoming traffic. He proceeded from the inside lane of southbound traffic on Hillside across the center stripe, passed the west half of the northbound traffic lane of Hillside and proceeded two and one-half feet into the east half of this northbound traffic lane and stopped in a position blocking all traffic in the west half of the northbound traffic lane and blocking a substantial part of tire lane in which plaintiff was traveling. As a matter of law this constituted negligence by defendant. His actions were a plain violation of K. S. A. 8-551 and his violation resulted in just the collision which this statute seeks to prevent.
It has been generally held that the negligence of a driver cannot be imputed to a passenger who has no control over the vehicle. (Kendrick v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rld. Co., 182 Kan. 249, 320 P. 2d *1971061; Taggart v. Yellow Cab Co. of Wichita, 156 Kan. 88, 131 P. 2d 924.)
In line with the Kendrick decision the passenger may have a duty to protect himself and may be barred because of his independent negligence. However, the facts we have in the case before this court disprove any possible negligence on the part of plaintiff passenger which might have contributed to his own injuries. Assuming the car in which he was riding was traveling 40 miles per hour with the traffic light green and vision to his left was blocked by cars in the inside lane, it was not disputed that the driver of the Gardner car saw the defendant’s car as quickly as the physical facts permitted him to see it. The 14-year old passenger cannot be guilty of negligence for failing to advise his driver of a fact which was already apparent to the driver.
Officer Henton established that a car traveling 35 miles per hour travels 51.3 feet per second; that die time it takes a person to react to apparent danger is three-fourths of a second, in which time a car travels 37.4 feet if driven at a speed of 35 miles per hour. He further testified that the braking distance at a speed of 35 miles per hour would be 91.9 feet. This makes a total of 130.3 feet necessary for the car to be stopped. The evidence indicated the two cars were not more than 70 feet apart when they became visible to each other for the first time. In my opinion the admitted and uncontroverted facts in this case establish that the car in which plaintiff was riding could not have been stopped in time to avoid the collision. The street had two lanes of traffic going north. The driver of plaintiff’s car cannot be required to avert injurious consequences of defendant’s negligence. (38 Am. Jur. Negligence § 79; 65 C. J. S. Negligence § 111, p. 695.) His failure to avert the accident cannot relieve the original wrongdoer of liability. The negligence of the driver of a car cannot in this case be imputed to the passenger. Neither can the 14-year old passenger be charged with negligence in failing to advise the driver of the dangerous situation created by defendant when the evidence establishes that the driver was aware of the same. The evidence conclusively establishes negligence by defendant which alone could have been the proximate cause of this accident.
This court should not indirectly destroy the rule against imputing negligence of the driver to a passenger by requiring a passenger to *198remonstrate with his driver against every action which might create some degree of negligence. To do so would make this a state of “back seat drivers.” The facts of this case were not such that a 14-year-old boy should have advised the driver of his car the minute the speedometer exceeded the posted speed limit. The testimony on the speed varied from 25 miles per hour to as much as 40 miles per hour.
I would affirm the case.
Fontron and O’Connor, JJ., join in tire foregoing dissent.