Holland v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 07 February 1974
• Docket Number: No. 11306,11306
• Citation: 95 Idaho 728,518 P.2d 1190
• Parties: Orville J. HOLLAND et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Vernal PETERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 1190

518 P.2d 1190

95 Idaho 728

Orville J. HOLLAND et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Vernal PETERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11306.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb. 7, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 7, 1974.

.lloyd J. Webb, of Webb, Pike, Burton & Carlson, Twin Falls, for defendant-appellant.

Robert M. Harwood, of Benoit, Benoit & Alexander, Twin Falls, for plaintiffs-respondents.

DONALDSON, Justice.

Plaintiffs-respondents Roxanne and Helen Holland, who are sister-in-law, brought suit for damages after a car owned and operated by Roxanne Holland and in which Helen Holland was a passenger collided with a truck driven by defendant-appellant Vernal Peterson. Respondents were joined in the suit by their respective husbands, Oriville J. Holland and John W. Holland. From a jury's verdict in favor of respondents, appellant prosecutes this appeal.

The facts of the case can best be illustrated by referring to the following diagram.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

On September 20, 1971, respondents were driving along the Wendell to Buhl highway on their way to work at the Thousand Springs Fish Hatchery. At the curve where the accident occurred, the Wendell to Buhl highway turns sharply from an east-west direction to a northsouth direction. Intersectiong the highway at the corner is a county farm access road. This road proceeds in a north south direction so that one is proceeding north along the highway and desires to go onto the county road, no turn is necessary.

As respondents approached the curve from the east, appellant was approaching from the south. It was appellant's intention to proceed straight through the intersection and onto the county road to the north. Both vehicles were travelling at approximately twenty to twenty-five miles per hour. Due to the dangerous configuration of the corner, the posted speed limit for the corner was twenty-five miles per hour. As respondents rounded the curve, they first sighted appellant crossing over their lane of traffic at a point forty to fifty feet in front of them. Although both parties applied their brakes, a collision resulted damagaing both vehicles, inflicting minor injuries upon Roxanne Holland and rather serious injuries upon Helen Holland.

Both respondents and appellant testified that they were unable to see the other vehicle any sooner than they did because of a high bank on the inside of the corner. The officer who investigated the accident testified that appeallant should have been able to see at least the top half of respondents' car as it approached the curve because of the advantageous viewpoint he enjoyed from the elevated cab of his truck. However, several other witnesses testified that respondents should have had a superior view. Appellant also testified that he did not stop before crossing over into respondents' lane of traffic, but that he did slow down.

There was considerable disagreement at the trial as to the location of the point of impact. Neither respondent could the actual collision and so were unable to testify where it actually occurred. Appellant, and several other witnesses who did not see the actual collision, testified that it occurred off the shoulder of the highway. However, the jury could reasonably have found from the testimony of the investigating officer that the collision occurred in respondents' lane of traffic. The officer testified that he placed the location there on the basis of skid marks found shortly after the accident and from the location of the two vehicles after the accident.

After hearing all the evidence, the jury found in favor of respondents. By way of answers to special interrogatiories, the jury found that Roxanne Holland, the driver of the car, was ten percent negligent. They found that her passenger, Helen Holland, was not negligent in any manner. They also found that appellant was ninety percent negligent. The court then entered judgment in favor of Helen Holland in the amount of $7,069.40 and in favor or Roxanne Holland in the amount of $656.67. After entering judgment, the court denied appellant's motion for judgment n. o. v. or, in the alternative, for new trial.

Appellant's first five assignments of error concern the instructions given to the jury concerning the law of intersections. However, at the trial appellant did not request any further instructions concerning the law or right-of-way at intersections than those given by the court. While the ones that were given by the court may not have fully instructed the jury as to the applicable law, they were correct in so far as they went. This Court has long adhered to the rule that when the instructions given by the trial court are correct in so far as they go, one cannot complain of a failure to give additional instructions if none are requested. Jones v. Talbot, 87 Idaho 498, 394 P.2d 316 (1964); Harper v. Johannesen, 84 Idaho 278, 371 P.2d 842 (1962); Preston v. Schrenk, 77 Idaho 481, 295 P.2d 272 (1956). As was stated in Mendenhall v. MacGregor Triangle Co., 83 Idaho 145, 149, 358 P.2d 860, 862 (1961):

'The giving of this instruction was proper in explaining the statutory duty of drivers approaching an intersection. The record fails to disclose that appellants requested any instruction amplifying the code provisions, and in the absence of a request for such instruction no error may now be predicated on the trial court's failure to fully amplify this instruction by defining various terms used in the statute.'

Appellant also contends that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury as to the provisions of I.C. § 49-727. ¹ However, the trial court gave to the jury verbatim the provisions of that section as amended in 1969 by the legislature. Thus, there was no error in instruction 11 given in this case.

Appellant's next assignment of error is that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the operator of a motor vehicle has the right to rely upon the compliance with the law by another drive. Appellant requested that the following instruction be given.

'Every person who, himself, is exercixing ordinary care, has a right to assume that every other person will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of reasonable cuase for thinking otherwise, it is not negligence for such a person to assume that he is not exposed to danger which can come to him only from a violation of law or duty by another person.'

Although appellant's requested instruction is a correct general statement of the law, Coughran v. Hickox, 82 Idaho 18, 348 P.2d 724 (1960), the court did not err in refusing to give it since it...