Buzick v. Todman
| Decision Date | 07 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | 31433 |
| Citation | 162 N.W. 259,179 Iowa 1019 |
| Parties | A. J. BUZICK, Appellee, v. BENJ. TODMAN, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hamilton District Court.--R. M. WRIGHT, Judge.
ACTION for damages resulted in judgment against defendant, from which he appeals.
Reversed.
F. J Lund and Chase & Chase, for appellant.
G. D Thompson, for appellee.
The main street of Blairsburg extends north and south. Two streets intersect this street at right angles. The plaintiff's son and another young man, with a lady on the lap of each, in the evening of September 5, 1915, drove a single horse and buggy from the south into the main street, and proceeded north along the west side until the head of the horse had reached the south line of the street intersection to the north, when he first observed defendant approaching from the east, with his automobile. He pulled up the lines, and, as he stopped the horse, defendant's automobile struck the horse and broke its leg, because of which it was shot. Recovery for the value of the horse is sought in this action.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff tended to show that the east side of the main street was rough, while the west side was smooth and well traveled; that for this reason the horse was driven on the west side; that defendant was driving his automobile at about the center of the street, at a speed of from 10 to 12 miles an hour; that it veered to the southwest from the east line of the street intersection and struck the horse somewhat south of the center of the east and west street.
The evidence in behalf of defendant was to the effect that, as he approached the main street, coming from the east, he was on the north side of the center, and slowed his car so that it was moving about 7 miles an hour; that he did not see the horse until his automobile struck it; that his failure to see was owing to the lights of a car near the north side of the street beyond the west line of the intersection; and that these lights dazzled his eyes so that he could not see the horse. Appellant contends that the evidence was not such as to carry the issues to the jury.
The defendant was required to travel on the right-hand side of the street, "as near the curb as the condition of the street will permit," with his automobile (Paragraph 1, Section 1571-m18, Code Supplement, 1913); and if, instead, he veered his car to the southwest and on the left side of the street, the jury might have found this to have been negligence. Defendant testified he could not see, because the lights of an automobile near a garage on the north side of the street to the west so dazzled his eyes that he did not see the horse until struck. To have proceeded on his way in disregard of other travelers or objects ahead of or approaching him, and therefore without keeping any lookout, might also have been regarded as negligent.
The above statute, however, does not apply to teams and wagons, and plaintiff's son, notwithstanding an instruction to the contrary, is not to be regarded as negligent in having driven his horse and buggy on the left side of the street.
"Persons on horseback, or in vehicles, including motor vehicles, meeting each other on the public highway, shall give one half of the beaten path thereof by turning to the right." Section 1569, Code Supplement, 1913.
Under this statute, he might properly have driven his horse in any part of the street, provided that, upon meeting another coming from the opposite direction, he gave one half the traveled way, and kept to the right of the center thereof. Riepe v. Elting, 89 Iowa 82, 56 N.W. 285; Baker v. Zimmerman, 179 Iowa 272, 161 N.W. 479.
But this statute does not apply to the meeting of travelers at the intersection of streets and approaching at right angles. Garrigan v. Berry, 12 Allen (Mass.) 84; Norris v. Saxton, (Mass.) 32 N.E. 954; Lyford v. Jacob Schmidt Brewing Co., 110 Minn. 158 (124 N.W. 831); Gilbert v. Burque, 72 N.H. 521 (57 A. 927); 2 Elliott on Roads & Streets (3d Ed.) Section 1081; Morse v. Sweenie, 15 Ill.App. 486; 37 Cyc. 272. In F. W. Cook Brewing Co. v. Ball, (Ind.) 52 N.E. 1002, it was held that travelers coming from opposite directions must turn to the right and give half the way; but, by implication, it was intimated that this is not the rule where the meeting is by travelers approaching at right angles. Travelers cannot well be said to meet when they come together in different directions from two roads or streets which intersect each other. If so, they may meet, in the statutory sense, when moving in the same direction, the one vehicle undertaking to pass the other. The statute was intended to lay down a definite rule applicable only to a situation most frequent when travelers approach each other on a single highway from opposite directions. The rights and duties of parties approaching each other on intersecting roads, save as to the manner of turning motor vehicles from one road into another (Paragraph 4 of Section 1571-m18, Code Supplement, 1913; Walterick v. Hamilton, 179 Iowa 607, 161 N.W. 684, are left to be governed by the salutary rules of the common law, which are ample in affording the careful traveler a remedy for any injury which may be suffered from the carelessness of others. The circumstance, then, that plaintiff's son was driving along the left side of the street, and did not turn to the right as defendant's automobile veered to the south, if it so did, did not necessarily amount to negligence on his part.
Plaintiff's son testified that he noticed defendant with his automobile just as it was coming to the east line of the intersection, but that the light previously had indicated its approach.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial