Hale v. Gunter

• Decision Date: 25 October 1960
• Docket Number: No. 8847,8847
• Parties: Clayton S. HALE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Vance GUNTER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 223

356 P.2d 223

82 Idaho 534

Clayton S. HALE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Vance GUNTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8847.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Oct. 25, 1960.

McDevitt & McDevitt, Pocatello, for appellant.

Mark B. Clark, Pocatello, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Chief Justice.

August 9, 1958, plaintiff (respondent) was proceeding north in his automobile along U. S. Highway 30 N, 191, 91, about one-half mile north of McCammon, in Bannock county. The car was being driven by plaintiff's wife. At the same time defendant (appellant) was driving his pickup truck north along the same highway a short distance ahead of plaintiff. A collision occurred while Mrs. Hale was attempting to pass defendant's truck, and while defendant was attempting to make a left turn off the highway and into a private roadway or lane on the west side of the highway.

Plaintiff and his wife were substantially in accord in their testimony as to the details of the occurrence. They testified that they were traveling at 45 to 50 miles per hour; that defendant was proceeding at about the same speed; defendant appeared to slow down; Mrs. Hale turned to the left to pass, 'peeped' her horn as she approached defendant's vehicle; about the time the front end of their car was even with the rear end of defendant's truck, they observed the red tail light on the truck light up, defendant's arm thrust out from the left side of the pickup, and the pickup commenced turning to the left; Mrs. Hale slammed on her brakes and 'set' on, or 'blasted', the horn; on seeing defendant's truck continue its course to the left, and that she could not avoid it by continuing in that direction, she made an attempt to turn to the right just before the impact; defendant's truck was driven forward across the approach to the Goodenough lane and into the borrow pit on the north side thereof; and that the right front of the Hale car struck the left rear end of the truck.

Defendant testified that he had been traveling at about 40 miles per hour; he slowed down to about 20 miles an hour to make the turn into the Goodenough lane; he started his turn about 50 feet south of the lane; he first observed plaintiff's car, through the rearview mirror attached to the left door of his truck, when it was 300 feet to the rear; he also turned and looked back over his right shoulder through his rear window; concluding that 'there was adequate room to make the turn,' he applied his brakes and extended his arm out the left side of the vehicle and commenced turning to the left; and that he did not hear plaintiff's horn--the first sound he heard was the screaming from the brakes of plaintiff's car. Asked if he saw plaintiff's car when he started making the turn, he replied that he 'couldn't see it' and 'well, I can't recall that I saw him at that time.' In response to the question,

'And how far south of the Goodenough lane did you hold out your arm?' he replied:

'Well, as Mr. Hale asked me when I got out of the car, he asked me, 'Why didn't you stick out your arm?' 'Well,' I said, 'I did, at least two hundred feet, and waved it up and down.' 'No,' he says.'

The pickup was not equipped with directional signal lights. The tail lights lighted up when the brakes were applied.

The highway patrolman, who arrived at the scene of the accident about 20 minutes after its occurrence, made measurements of the location of the cars and the skid marks upon the highway. He testified that their was no evidence of excessive speed by either driver; plaintiff's automobile left skid marks commencing at a point on the west lane of the surfaced highway near the center line and extending diagonally along the pavement toward the west side a distance of 66 feet to the point of impact, and an additional 38 feet 6 inches along the edge of the pavement and along the west shoulder to where the car stopped; that the gateway entrance to the Goodenough lane was 16 feet wide and the approach fanned out from the entrance to the paved portion of the highway; that the point of impact was 50 feet south of the south gatepost; that the normal reaction time of a driver between the awareness of danger ahead and the application of brakes, as measured in distance traveled by the car, is 10 feet for every 10 miles per hour of speed at which the vehicle is moving; and that at 50 miles per hour a driver with normal reaction would apply the brakes 50 feet after becoming aware of danger ahead.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages to his automobile resulting from the collision, alleging negligence of the defendant as the proximate cause of the damage. Defendant denied negligence on his part and alleged negligence of the plaintiff as the proximate cause.

The cause was tried to the court sitting without a jury. The court found that Mrs. Hale was operating the Hale automobile in a careful and prudent manner and within the posted speed limit at the time she turned out to pass defendant's vehicle.

'2. That the defendant was negligent in failing to ascertain with certainty that there was no traffic approaching from the rear and to his left in the act of passing when he, the defendant, put on his brakes and extended his arm for the purpose of slowing and signalling a left turn and turning to the left to cross the southbound lane of traffic from the heavily traveled U. S. Highway 30 N, 91, 191 to enter a private lane or driveway;

'3. That the defendant was negligent in turning his head to the right to look over his shoulder to the rear while in the act of slowing and signalling for a left turn when the only traffic that would be in position to interfere with or hinder said left turn would be approaching the defendant immediately to his...