Bowe v. Jenkins
| Decision Date | 30 December 1982 |
| Citation | 455 N.E.2d 707,7 Ohio App.3d 302 |
| Parties | , 7 O.B.R. 385 BOWE, Appellant, v. JENKINS, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. R.C. 4511.42 places a mandatory duty upon one who is turning left to yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.
2. A driver turning left at an intersection may not rely upon a turn signal made by the driver of an oncoming vehicle which indicates that the driver of the oncoming vehicle intends to turn before he or she reaches the first car.
3. R.C. 4511.39, which requires a signal when turning or stopping, does not relieve the driver of a vehicle making a left turn from the duty to yield to oncoming traffic as mandated by R.C. 4511.42.
James D. Hapner, Hillsboro, for appellant Glenn B. Bowe.
John R. Wykoff, Dayton, for appellee Emily L. Jenkins.
On April 11, 1980, the plaintiff's wife was operating plaintiff's motor vehicle in an easterly direction on Washington Street in Sabina, Ohio, when she signaled to turn left into the northbound lane of Howard Street. A vehicle which was operated by the defendant approached the same intersection in the westbound lane. The defendant also activated her left turn signal as she approached the intersection, indicating that she intended to turn into the southbound lane of Howard Street. Since the plaintiff's wife was closer to the intersection, she commenced her turn, at which time there was a collision of the two vehicles.
An action for damages to the plaintiff's vehicle was commenced in the Wilmington Municipal Court and the case was set for trial. A jury was empaneled and the plaintiff presented his evidence. The evidence included a statement made by the defendant to the police officer who investigated the accident. This statement was to the effect that the defendant changed her mind when she reached the intersection and decided to go straight instead of turning left.
At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant made a motion to dismiss, which was sustained by the trial court on the basis that the evidence failed to show that the defendant violated any statutory duty, or had failed to use ordinary care. This appeal is from that decision and the plaintiff assigns as error the granting of the defendant's motion for dismissal at the close of his case.
The plaintiff contends that it is a jury question as to whether a driver may rely upon a turn signal made by the driver of an oncoming vehicle which indicates that the driver of the oncoming vehicle intends to turn before she reaches the first car. The plaintiff also contends that if the driver of the oncoming vehicle should have foreseen that the driver of the first vehicle would rely upon her signal, then the driver of the oncoming vehicle was negligent in proceeding straight ahead and not turning. We do not agree.
R.C. 4511.42 reads as follows:
"The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Warrum
...not contributorily negligent in proceeding straight after signaling a turn. Plaintiffs rely on the Ohio cases of Bowe v. Jenkins (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 302, 455 N.E.2d 707, and Timmins v. Russomano (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 124, 236 N.E.2d 665, which stand for the proposition that a motorist who......
-
State v. Rick L. Rossiter
... ... ordinary care to display a turn signal and give a hand ... signal, neither violates a statute or ordinance. In Bowe ... v. Jenkins (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 302, the Court of ... Appeals of Clinton County held that "[a] driver turning ... left at an ... ...
-
Patricia E. Jones, Dennis L. Jones and Prudential Ins. Co. v. David W. Oldham, Mt. Healthy City School District, Blust Motor Service, Inc., Midwest Amtram, Inc., Robert Boetzel, American Transportation Corp., Navistar International Transportation Corp., and Navistar International Corp.
... ... if there is a genuine issue relative to it." ... Id. at 60, 568 N.E.2d at 721. See, also, Bowe v ... Jenkins (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 302, 455 N.E.2d 707 ... Despite appellants' arguments to the contrary, we find ... ...
-
Townsend v. Downing, C-880335
...vehicle in compliance with the statutory requirement before reaching the intersecting stop street." See, also, Bowe v. Jenkins (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 302, 7 OBR 385, 455 N.E.2d 707. By analogy to Timmins v. Russomano, we hold that a motorist approaching an intersection with a turn signal in ......