Evans v. Palmeter
| Decision Date | 05 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 34S00-8803-CV-371,34S00-8803-CV-371 |
| Citation | 521 N.E.2d 316 |
| Parties | Lola J. EVANS, Personal Representative of Kenneth E. Wyant, Deceased, Appellant, v. Lewis E. PALMETER and Transport International Pool, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
In an opinion reported in 509 N.E.2d 1130 (1987), the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision of the trial court in which it sustained a motion for summary judgment in favor of Transport International Pool, Inc. and rendered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of appellee Lewis E. Palmeter. The Court of Appeals approved the granting of summary judgment in favor of Transport International Pool, Inc. but reversed the judgment in favor of Palmeter. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Conover concurred with the granting of summary judgment but dissented as to the reversal of the judgment in favor of Palmeter. We are in complete agreement with Judge Conover's dissenting opinion.
The facts are: Just prior to the accident in question, Kenneth Wyant was northbound on his motorcycle on State Highway 29. Lewis Palmeter, who was driving a tractor-trailer, had been following Wyant at a distance of about 60 feet for approximately 25 to 30 miles at an estimated speed of between 55 and 60 miles per hour. For an unknown reason, Wyant suddenly slowed his motorcycle but remained upon the travelled portion of the highway. Palmeter testified that at that moment he had glanced in his rear view mirror, and when he again focused on the motorcycle, the brake light was on and he was too close to avoid a collision. Wyant died as a result of the collision. Tests showed that Palmeter had a blood alcohol content of .025 percent.
The Court of Appeals opinion reversed the jury verdict on the ground that Palmeter was negligent as a matter of law, citing various statistics as to how far an automobile will travel in a second at 60 miles per hour and from that they deduced appellant was following too closely as a matter of law. As observed by Judge Conover, the Indiana Legislature has never seen fit to establish a safe following distance at any given speed as a matter of law. It has been the wisdom of the legislature to leave such matters to be determined by individual juries in individual factual situations. This is not too surprising in view of the fact that most jurors operate motor vehicles on our highways and are conversant with the manner in which traffic moves and the ability of drivers to control their vehicles under varying conditions. All of the facts above recited were fully presented to the jury. It was for them to determine whether or not Palmeter was in fact negligent in the manner in which he was operating his truck. This was purely a factual situation to be weighed.
Although Ind.Code Sec. 9-4-1-73(a) provides that "[t]he driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent," many cases starting with Opple, et al. v. Ray (1935), 208 Ind. 450, 195 N.E. 81, have held that although a driver has a duty to watch the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Compton v. Pletch
...factors must exist: 1. The appearance of danger or peril must be so imminent that the party had no time for deliberation. Evans v. Palmeter (1988), Ind., 521 N.E.2d 316; 2. The situation relied upon to excuse any failure to exercise legal care must not have been created by the party's own n......
-
Willis v. Westerfield
...is not so much a doctrine as an illustration of how negligence law is applied in a specific situation."). 3. In Evans v. Palmeter, 521 N.E.2d 316, 317 (Ind.1988), this Court reviewed a claim that a trial court gave a sudden emergency instruction based on insufficient evidence. In dicta, thi......
-
Collins v. Rambo
...decisions, etc.). We stress that the sudden emergency doctrine was designed for those situations that are unexpected. See Evans v. Palmeter, 521 N.E.2d 316 (Ind.1988) (3-2 decision concluding that there was evidence to support sudden emergency instruction where truck driver, who been follow......
-
Dineen v. Earl Oliver & Dakota Lines, Inc.
...actor would not be justified, the determination of proximate cause may be made as a matter of law."). Relying on Evans v. Palmeter, 521 N.E.2d 316, 317 (Ind. 1988), defendants argue that although a "driver has a duty to watch the traffic ahead of him, he is not necessarily chargeable with n......