Auflick v. Dickson

• Decision Date: 16 April 1968
• Docket Number: No. 3618,3618
• Citation: 439 P.2d 452
• Parties: Robert AUFLICK, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Louis A. DICKSON, Rocky Mountain Trucking Company, Lester Loehr, and B. F. Walker Trucking Company, Appellees (Defendants below).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 452

439 P.2d 452

Robert AUFLICK, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Louis A. DICKSON, Rocky Mountain Trucking Company, Lester Loehr, and B. F. Walker Trucking Company, Appellees (Defendants below).

No. 3618.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 16, 1968.

Raymond B. Whitaker, John Burk, Casper, for appellant.

R. R. Bostwick, of Murane, Bostwick, McDaniel & Scott, William H. Brown, of Brown, Drew, Apostolos, Barton & Massey, Casper, for appellees.

Before HARNSBERGER, C. J., and GRAY, McINTYRE, and PARKER, JJ.

Mr. Chief Justice HARNSBERGER delivered the opinion of the court.

This action is for damages claimed to have been sustained by plaintiff in a rear end car-truck collision. At issue were defendants' negligence and plaintiff's contributory negligence. Upon conclusion of the evidence and defendant's motion, the jury was instructed to and did render a verdict for each of the four defendants, and the court entered its judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff appeals.

From uncontradicted evidence it appears a vehicle, hereinafter referred to as the 'May' car, traveling north ran into and demolished the right-hand railing of a bridge, then came to a stop at its extreme north end, where it remained, hanging half on and half off the edge of the bridge. Defendant Loehr, driving a truck belonging to defendant Walker, approaching the scene from the north and traveling south, witnessed the accident, stopped his vehicle in its south-bound lane about 150 feet from the north edge of the bridge, dismounted, and went to the bridge. Seeing a vehicle coming from the south going north, he flagged it down. This vehicle was the truck of Rocky Mountain Trucking Company driven by defendant Dickson. The Dickson-driven truck stopped about 24 feet from the south side of the bridge. Thereafter, plaintiff Auflick, coming from the south, driving north in a Ford car, collided with the rear of the Rocky Mountain truck demolishing his car and injuring himself.

In preface to its order directing the verdict, the court commented that the 'B. F. Walker truck saw it (the May car accident), had to stop because he couldn't get across the bridge possibly or he would have damaged maybe that other car. The Rocky Mountain truck had to stop because the (May) car was teetering in his lane. Both trucks were loaded; neither were empty. It was night and snow in the barrow pit.' The court then said:

'* * * but granting that they were negligent in where they stopped, and granting that they were negligent in failing to get off, just for the sake of argument, I can't see how you can get around the fact that this plaintiff, as a matter of law, was contributorily negligent. He certainly should have seen the lights on these vehicles (the trucks). Every person that came up there was alerted that there was an unusual situation that required caution and everyone of them took it and no one had any problem. * * *'

Testimony favorable to plaintiff varied considerably as to the placement, kind, and number of lights upon the Rocky Mountain truck. Some witnesses said those lights were partially obscured by dirt, et cetera. Other of plaintiff's witnesses testified that from distances of approximately 900 feet away, as they came upon the scene from the south heading north, they saw lights. Although part of these witnesses seemed to think those lights were from the Auflick car, both patrolmen who investigated the accident shortly after its occurrence testified positively and without contradiction that the battery of the Auflick car was completely demolished. This admits of but one logical conclusion-the lights which plaintiff's witnesses testified came from the Auflick car must have been reflections from lights of approaching vehicles.

The lighting at the scene of the accident is important in three aspects. First, as it affects the question of defendants' compliance with requirements of our statutes relating to the number, kind, and placement of lights upon their vehicles; second, as bearing upon the question of whether there was such illumination of the May accident scene as warned of a dangerous situation and which should have alerted Auflick and enabled him to avoid his collision; and third, whether, as contended, plaintiff was blinded by lights from the Walker truck.

The applicable statute is § 31-179, W.S.1957 (now § 31-179, W.S.1957, C.1967), which provides:

'In addition to other equipment required in this act, the following vehicles shall be equipped as herein stated under the conditions stated in section 110 (§ 31-178).

'(a) On every bus or truck, whatever its size, there shall be the following: On the rear, two reflectors, one at each side, and one stop light.

'(b) On every bus or truck 80 inches or more in over-all width, in addition to the requirements in paragraph (a):

'On the front, two clearance lamps, one at each side.

'On the rear, two clearance lamps, one at each side.

'On each side, two side marker lamps, one at or near the front and one at or near the rear.

'On each side, two reflectors, one at or near the front and one at or near the rear.

'(c) On every truck tractor:

'On the front, two clearance lamps, one at each side.

'On the rear, one stop light.

'(d) On every trailer or semitrailer having a gross weight in excess of 3,000 pounds:

'On the front, two clearance lamps, one at each side.

'On each side, two side marker lamps, one at or near the front and one at or near the rear.

'On each side, two reflectors, one at or near the front and one at or near the rear.

'On the rear, two clearance lamps, one at each side, also two reflectors, one at each side, and one stop light.

'(e) On every pole trailer in excess of 3,000 pounds gross weight:

'On each side, one side marker lamp and one clearance lamp which may be in combination, to show to the front, side, and rear.

'On the rear of the pole trailer or load, two reflectors, one at each side.

'(f) On every trailer, semitrailer, or pole trailer weighing 3,000 pounds gross or less:

'On the rear, two reflectors, one on each side.

If any trailer or semitrailer is so loaded or is of such dimensions as to obscure the stop light on the towing vehicle, then such vehicle shall also be equipped with one stop light.'

Taking the widely varied testimonies most favorable to plaintiff respecting the lighting of the trucks, they failed to show defendants' trucks were not lawfully equipped with proper lights or that these lights were not turned on when Auflick was approaching.

In any event, as the court's conclusion was primarily predicated upon the contributory negligence of Auflick rather than the absence of negligence of defendants, this first question is of relatively minor importance.

Plaintiff's evidence emphasized the Walker truck lights were numerous, and the record is clear that, following the accident, drivers of other vehicles which were traveling at speeds as great as from 70 to 75 miles per hour observed these lights in time to safely stop by ordinary braking procedure.

The only evidence as to the lighting of the trucks at the time of the collision was given by defendants Loehr...