DiLlon v. Diamond Prods. Co., 41325.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 41325.,41325. |
| Citation | 245 N.W. 725,215 Iowa 440 |
| Parties | DILLON v. DIAMOND PRODUCTS CO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Marshalltown; L. R. Sheets, Judge.
An action to recover for damages arising from an automobile accident. The plaintiff was defeated by the verdict of a jury, and, from judgment entered accordingly, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.Boardman & Cartwright, of Marshalltown, for appellant.
E. N. Farber, of Marshalltown, for appellee.
This automobile collision occurred on the 20th day of August, 1930, about 2 p. m. Plaintiff was traveling in a westerly direction in his Velie touring car, on an east and west road about two miles west of the town of Liscomb, and the defendant's truck was following his car, also going in a westerly direction on the same road. Plaintiff sought to turn to the left onto a byroad running south, and, as he neared the point at which he wished to turn, there was another car coming from the west. He stopped his car to let it pass, and then attempted to turn south on the byroad, and his car was struck by the defendant's truck.
Among other instructions given of which plaintiff complains is the following:
“You are instructed that it is the law of this State, and was the law at the time of the collision between the car owned by the plaintiff and the truck owned by the defendant, that the operator of a motor vehicle shall, before turning or changing the course of his vehicle, first see that there is sufficient space to make such movement in safety, and shall give a visible or audible signal to the drivers of vehicles following, of his intention to make such a movement, by raising and extending the hand or by a proper signal or device indicating with it the direction in which he wishes to turn.
And you are further instructed that if you find from a preponderance of the evidence in this case that the plaintiff, before moving his automobile from the place where it was in a stationary position and turning it across the highway and proceeding toward the driveway on the south side thereof, did not first see that there was sufficient space to make such movement in safety, or did not give a visible or audible signal to the drivers of vehicles following, of his intention to make such a movement, then he was guilty of negligence and cannot recover on his claim against the defendant in this action, and on that branch of this case your verdict should be for the defendant.”
The substantial part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ritchie v. Schaefer
...of its allegation that failure to restrain animals from running at large should be considered negligence per se: Dillon v. Diamond Products Company, 215 Iowa 440, 245 N.W. 725; Wachter v. McCuen, 250 Iowa 820, 96 N.W.2d 597; Kohler v. Sheffert, 250 Iowa 899, 96 N.W.2d 911; Florke v. Peterso......
- Dillon v. Diamond Products Co.