Dwyer v. Peters, 7121

• Decision Date: 21 April 1931
• Docket Number: 7121
• Citation: 58 S.D. 357,236 N.W. 301
• Parties: WILLIAM E. DWYER, Respondent, v. F. W. PETERS, ET AL, dba Red Arrow Garage, Appellants.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

58 S.D. 357

236 N.W. 301

WILLIAM E. DWYER, Respondent, v. F. W. PETERS, ET AL, dba Red Arrow Garage,

Appellants.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tripp County, SD

Hon. John G. Bartine, Judge

#7121—Affirmed

P. A. Hosford, Winner, SD

Attorney for Appellants.

Windsor Doherty, Winner, SD

Attorney for Respondent.

Opinion filed Apr 21, 1931

ROBERTS, J.

This is an action for the recovery of damages to an automobile owned by the plaintiff alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in leaving at night a tractor standing on the highway without lights.

The accident in question occurred on a public highway south of Winner on the evening of October 16, 1929. Plaintiff, accompanied by his wife and a brother, was driving his automobile north toward Winner when he collided with a tractor which at the time was standing on the highway and in charge of an employee of the defendants. The tractor carried no lights. The road is level for a distance of two miles north and south of the place where the collision occurred. Plaintiff met a truck which was going south. The lights of the truck were not blinding, plaintiff testified, but did partially obstruct his vision. Immediately after passing the truck, the plaintiff crashed into the tractor, which he did not see until he was within 20 feet. The impact drove the tractor forward 2 feet, bent the steel rims of the left rear wheel of the tractor, broke the crank case, and stripped the gears. Plaintiff’s automobile was damaged beyond repair. The verdict of the jury awarded plaintiff $300. Defendants appeal from the judgment and from an order denying motion for new trial.

A motion for directed verdict was made by the defendants. The sole ground in support of such motion presented to this court for review is that plaintiff was negligent in failing to equip his automobile with headlights which reflected a light in compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Motor Vehicle Act, and denial of such motion presents the one question whether plaintiff as a matter of law was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to comply with such statutory regulations.

Plaintiff on cross-examination testified that he was driving 20 to 30 miles an hour, and this is the only direct testimony as to the rate of speed at which he was going at the time of the accident, and that his headlights cast a light making objects clearly visible 150 to 200 feet. Section 52 of chapter 251, Laws of 1929, known as the Uniform Motor Vehicle Act, provides that “headlamps of motor vehicles shall be so constructed, arranged, and adjusted that ... they will at all times mentioned in Section 50 and under normal atmospheric conditions and on a level road produce a driving light sufficient to render clearly discernible a person two hundred feet ahead.” Section 50 referred to indicates the conditions under which lights are required; it provides that every vehicle upon...