Ball v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 February 1977
• Docket Number: No. 75--519,75--519
• Citation: 4 Ill.Dec. 334,45 Ill.App.3d 827,360 N.E.2d 81
• Parties: , 4 Ill.Dec. 334 Margarey BALL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONTINENTAL SOUTHERN LINES, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 81

360 N.E.2d 81

45 Ill.App.3d 827, 4 Ill.Dec. 334

Margarey BALL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONTINENTAL SOUTHERN LINES, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75--519.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Feb. 15, 1977.

Edward P. Burke, East St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Cohn, Carr, Korein, Kunin & Brennan, East St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellee; Rex Carr, East St. Louis, of counsel.

GEORGE J. MORAN, Justice:

Defendant Continental Southern Lines, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County entered on a verdict in the sum of $100,000 in favor of plaintiff. Defendant alleges error in the trial court's refusal to give one of defendant's tendered instructions and also alleges that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive.

Plaintiff's cause of action arose from a traffic accident involving her car and a passenger bus owned by the defendant Continental Southern Lines, Inc. On December 4, 1971 plaintiff Margarey Ball was proceeding south on Illinois Route 3 at approximately 50--60 miles per hour. Plaintiff testified that the defendant's bus, driven by Raford Lisenbee, had closed to within 50 feet of her car as he prepared to pass. The hood of plaintiff's Volkswagen flew up and obstructed the plaintiff's vision.

Knowing the defendant's bus was following her closely, plaintiff did not brake immediately. She traveled about 150 feet prior to the time of collision, and did not move immediately off the road because of a drop in the pavement at the shoulder of the highway. Plaintiff testified that her right turn blinker was on and that she was attempting to slow the car and move it off the roadway. She stated that her car was entirely on the roadway and that she was moving at approximately ten miles per hour at the time of the collision.

The driver of defendant's bus, Lisenbee, testified that he was traveling about 50 miles per hour and was about 50 feet behind the defendant and accelerating in an attempt to pass. He saw the hood of the Volkswagen fly up and applied his brakes before plaintiff tried to stop. Lisenbee testified that he was unable to stop because the wheels of the bus had dropped off onto the shoulder. He had previously stated at a deposition that he was too close to move around her. Lisenbee further testified that plaintiff's car had come to a complete stop on the roadway at the time of the collision.

Defendant urges error predicated upon the trial court's refusal to give defendant's instruction number two. The tendered instruction related to the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff and set out section 11--1301(a) of The Illinois Rules of the Road (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11--1301(a)). That section provides as follows:

'Upon any highway outside a business or residence district of any city, village or incorporated town, no person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the roadway when it is practicable to stop, park or so leave such vehicle off such part of the roadway, but in every event an unobstructed width of the roadway opposite a standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of such stopped vehicle shall be available from a distance of 200 feet in each direction upon such highway.'

Defendant's instruction did not include subsection (c) of section 11--1301. Subsection (c) reads as follows:

'This Section does not apply to the driver of any vehicle which is disabled while on the roadway in such manner and to such extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving such disabled vehicle in such position. However, at least one door of any motor vehicle permitted to stand unattended on the roadway shall be left unlocked.'

In this case plaintiff was faced with an emergency situation when the hood of her car flew up and obstructed her vision. When faced with a sudden emergency or imminent peril, the driver of an automobile must exercise that degree of care and caution which an ordinarily prudent and careful person would exercise under the circumstances. (Dirksmeyer v. Barnes, 2 Ill.App.2d 496, 110 N.E.2d 813.) It is defendant's theory that the failure of the plaintiff to move her car off the highway in violation of section 11--1301(a) of The Illinois Rules of the Road (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11--1301(a)) rendered her guilty of contributory negligence.

It is true, as defendant notes, that every party has the right to have the law stated fairly, clearly, distinctly and conveyed to the jury with substantial accuracy (Sims v. Chicago Transit Authority, 7 Ill.App.2d 21, 29--30, 129 N.E.2d 23; Berg v. Collier, 60 Ill.App.2d 145, 208 N.E.2d 353). There is also no impropriety in instructing in the language of an appropriate statute (Deming v. City of Chicago, 321 Ill. 341, 151 N.E. 886). An instruction, howevr, must accurately state the law and must not confuse or mislead a jury.

The evidence with regard to the speed of the plaintiff's auto at the time of the collision was conflicting. Plaintiff testified that she was moving at approximately 10 miles per hour while the defendant's driver testified that her car was completely stopped. Even if plaintiff's car was stopped completely at the time of the collision, the instruction was properly refused. It is not every stopping on the highway in apparent violation of section 11--1301 which renders the party guilty of negligence or contributory negligence. (See Dromey v. Interstate Motor Freight Service, 121 F.2d 361 (7th Cir. 1941) (momentary stop for left-hand turn outside purview); Beatrice Foods Co. v. Leucht, 35 Ill.App.2d 188, 182 N.E.2d 346 (emergency vehicle stopped for removal of overturned truck not within purview of statute and not proximate cause).).

As previously noted, defendant's tendered instruction omitted subsection (c) of 11--1301 which suspends the applicability of the section in emergency situations where it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving a disabled vehicle on the roadway. A mechanical breakdown or failure may constitute an emergency which would justify the stopping of a vehicle on the roadway. (Janes v. Motor Transit Management Co., 260 Ill.App. 246.) Subsection (a) of 11--1301...