Court Opinion

ID: 9526225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:14:24.715497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:29.553092
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent. The majority correctly states that “The principal issue in this case is whether all of the evidence, when viewed in its aspect most favorable to plaintiffs Robert L. Mueller, administrator of the estate of Willard H. Maberry, and Betty L. Maberry, his widow, so overwhelmingly favors the defendant, Sangamo Construction Co., that a verdict for plaintiffs can never stand. (Pedrick v. Peoria and Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill.2d 494, 510.)” (61 Ill.2d 441, 442.) Compliance with the directive of Pedrick requires the consideration of evidence apparently disregarded by the majority. The testimony shows that in order to reroute the two northbound traffic lanes from the old bridge to the new, a detour was constructed in the highway, south of the bridge. The detour for northbound traffic began near the north end of a sweeping left curve in the old highway, and the old highway continued its curve to the left, into the median between the northbound and southbound lanes. In order to provide a smooth transition for traffic leaving the old road and going onto the detour lanes defendant had been required to install an “overlay.” The overlay was an inch of asphalt which covered the top of the old roadway including the edge line and the center line of the old pavement. Because of salt used during the winter the overlay was broken loose and had been removed. The texture and color of the surface of the road to the south of the “V” were the same as that of the old highway which curved to the left from the “V”. The surface of the detour lanes was blacktop and darker than that of the old highway. Although several efforts had been made to paint out the reflective center line of the old highway it was exposed and visible. The testimony is undisputed that as the result of being struck by vehicles, the marker barrels were frequently moved from their designated positions; that there was no lighting where the detour commenced; that the lights of southbound vehicles presented a hazard, and that there was no lighting on the rubble pile or any warning of its presence. The majority apparently finds significant the fact that “Decedent was not unfamiliar with the area, having driven safely through it on two prior occasions, both at night, within the preceding week.” 61 Ill.2d 441, 446. Maberry was on a 300-mile trip from Granite City to Chicago. There is no testimony concerning the weather, degree of darkness, placement of the barrels, the condition of the center line of the old road, or the presence of parallel and opposing traffic at the time of the other trips. Nor is there any evidence or persuasive argument that because he had twice previously traveled over the route he should have remembered whether every traffic marker or warning along the route was accurate, or as here, inaccurate, misleading and hazardous. Any inferences from the fact that Maberry had traveled this section of highway on two occasions within a week or 10 days prior to this occurrence were to be drawn by the jury. The majority also states “Plaintiffs argued that decedent could not safely use his brakes because severe braking would cause the load of steel to shift into the cab. Leaving aside the implications of that argument as to the lack of due care inherent in driving a truck which cannot be safely braked under emergency conditions, we note the undisputed testimony by the truck owner that normal braking pressures could be safely applied.” (61 Ill.2d 441, 447.) This does not accurately state the testimony. The testimony was that loaded as it was, and traveling on dry level pavement at a speed of 40 to 50 miles per hour, the tractor-trailer unit could be stopped in a distance of 275 to 300 feet. The testimony also showed that “locking” the brakes to make a sudden stop could result in the load of steel shifting forward through the bulkhead of the trailer into the cab of the tractor, as it did when the truck struck the rubble pile. The record shows that the decedent, upon arriving at the detour, was confronted with a type of “V” intersection in the highway; the road bearing to the left was of the same color and texture as the road over which he had been traveling; the reflectorized center stripe of the old road curving to the left was clearly visible and a sign located approximately 1500 feet to the south had warned of a curve to the left. At that point the decedent was confronted with the decision whether to continue onto the left curve or jog to the right on the detour lanes. He was further confronted, upon seeing the rubble pile, with the decision whether to risk the dangers resulting from a sudden stop. A person who without fault on his part is confronted with sudden danger or apparent sudden danger is not required to act with the same deliberation and foresight which might be required under ordinary circumstances. (Kavanaugh v. Parret, 379 Ill. 273.) Issues of negligence or contributory negligence should ordinarily be decided as questions of fact for the reason that “Negligence is a composite of the experiences of the average man and is thus usually confined to jury evaluation.” (Keating v. Jones Development of Missouri, Inc. (5th Cir. 1968), 398 F.2d 1011, 1014.) Whether, under the circumstances shown by this record, the deceased was in the exercise of due care for his own safety was decided by the jury, and the proper application of the rule of Pedrick requires that the verdict be reinstated.