Court Opinion

ID: 9695479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:20:41.177991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:13.134199
License: Public Domain

*1334Thompson, J.
(dissenting) — I fear that Division II of the majority opinion makes the court the trier of the facts rather than the jury. It appears to me there was substantial evidence, rather than a mere scintilla, which supported the plaintiff’s position.
Upon the question of lookout, we have held that when there is evidence that one party was driving on his left-hand side of the road, lookout is necessarily involved. Hackman v. Beckwith, 245 Iowa 791, 802, 803, 64 N.W.2d 275, 282; Pazen v. Des Moines Transportation Co., 223 Iowa 23, 27, 28, 272 N.W. 126, 129; Spry v. Lamont, 257 Iowa 321, 329, 132 N.W.2d 446, 451.
The facts here also' seem to have required a submission of the specification of negligence based on the defendant’s failure to sound his horn as he approached the blind crest of this hill. He had seen the lights of the other car approaching from the opposite direction; and a warning of his own presence could well have been found advisable; indeed, such a precaution as an ordinarily prudent person would take in the exercise of due care.
I conclude the plaintiff did not have a fair trial, and would reverse.
Garfield, C. J., joins in this dissent.