Court Opinion

ID: 9687990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:56:20.818814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:33.951854
License: Public Domain

BIEGELMEIER, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the opinion insofar as it grants a new trial because of the apparent deliberate statement of plaintiff as to insurance.
I cannot agree with that part of the opinion which, conditioned on the evidence at the new trial, directs giving of the instruction *319set out and should state my reasons for this conclusion. No such instruction was presented in writing to the court as required in RCP 51(a), which provides:
"All requests for instructions shall be in writing and in duplicate, and shall be presented to the court on or before the time fixed for settling instructions. * * *
All requested instructions which are refused by the court shall be so endorsed by the court on the numbered copy. An additional numbered copy of each requested instruction shall be furnished to opposing counsel."
These rules "are the law of this state, and binding, as such, upon the courts to which they apply." Reasons for requiring strict conformance thereto appear in the opinion of Heyl v. Waggoner, 58 S.D. 420, 236 N.W. 375, where the court forcefully condemned the giving of oral instructions where written instructions were required. In the present case on page 137 of the transcript the following appears:
"MR. MORGAN: I would ask leave of the court to propose instructions orally, and will provide you with a copy as soon as I can — if the court would permit me to put them in orally.
"THE COURT: I'll permit you."
The propriety of this so-called, proposed, but oral instruction is not presented to the court and we so held as recently as December 17, 1971, in State v. Greene. 86 S.D. 177, 192 N.W.2d 712.
The requirements of first seeing that the stopping can be made in safety, the giving of the signal, etc., were included by the court in Instruction 13, and the requirement of a 20-foot clearance was included in Instruction 14. The instructions given, which did not invade the province of the jury as the suggested instruction may, were:
*320"INSTRUCTION NO. 13
The court instructs the jury that a driver of any vehicle upon a highway, before starting, stopping, or turning from a direct line, shall first see that such movement can be made in safety; and whenever the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by such movement, he shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle of his intention to make such movement. A signal herein required shall be given either by means of the hand and arm or by an approved mechanical or electrical signal device."
"INSTRUCTION NO. 14
It is unlawful for any person to park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or improved or main traveled portion of any highway, when it is practical to park or leave such vehicle standing off of the paved or improved or main traveled portion of the highway. In no event shall any person park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon any highway unless a clear or unobstructed width of not less than twenty feet upon the main traveled portion of such highway opposite such standing vehicle shall be left for free passage of other vehicles thereon, or unless a clear view of such vehicle may be obtained from a distance of two hundred feet in each direction upon such highway."
Further, the testimony of the deputy sheriff and plaintiff who measured the road was that it was only 21 or 22 feet wide, so that the stopping of a car which is six feet wide on this road would only leave about 15 or 16 feet. I do not believe the legislature intended to prohibit the stopping of an automobile on a road 21 or 22 feet wide, which would be the effect of applying this statute to such a road, nor that the stopping of this car for a few seconds was within the words "park" or "leave standing" of SDCL 32-30-2. It must be remembered that the cited statute, now separate, was a part *321of SDC 44.0324 which included SDCL 32-30-1, and that section referred to the parking "when it is practical to park or leave such vehicle standing off of the paved or improved or main traveled portion of the highway." In any event, his automobile was close to the right edge of the highway, and the evidence shows there was ample room for defendant to pass to plaintiff's left on this bright, sunny day. From the pictures it appears there was room for two cars to pass. The cause of this accident was not the position of the plaintiff's car, but whether the stopping of it was the cause of the accident. See the comment of the court in Griebel v. Ruden, 61 S.D. 507, 249 N.W. 810.
"But assuming that plaintiff's car stood where defendant claims it stood, and assuming that a third car did approach from the west, defendant is still without excuse for running into plaintiff's (stopped) car. There was at least fifteen feet of pavement and 4 to 5 feet of shoulder south of plaintiff's car. This allowed an abundance of room for the truck and the car from the west to pass each other without interfering with plaintiff's car."
Here there were no cars approaching, and plaintiff had about 15 feet of clear, uninterrupted, dry road to pass safely.