Lang v. Kollasch
| Decision Date | 23 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 42427.,42427. |
| Parties | LANG v. KOLLASCH. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Kossuth County; James De Land, Judge.
An action involving property damage resulting from a collision of automobiles. There was a directed verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Affirmed.Van Ness & Stillman, of Algona, and C. D. Reed, of Des Moines, for appellant.
Sullivan, McMahon & Linnan, of Algona, for appellee.
The controversy here presented has to do with a collision between the automobiles of the respective parties at a highway intersection about two miles north of the town of Whittemore in Kossuth county, Iowa, at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon of July 4, 1932. A county trunk road designated as W runs north and south, and at the point of collision is intersected by a local township road extending east and west. The county road W is graded and graveled; its traveled portion being about 26 feet wide. The township road is graded and has a traveled portion about 15 feet wide. There was no regulation stop or slow signs at the east and west side of the county road W at the intersection. Plaintiff-appellant was driving north on the county trunk road at a speed of 25 or 30 miles an hour. The defendant-appellee was driving west on the township road at approximately the same speed. The township road west from the intersection was open and plainly observable. To the right or east of the intersection the township road was obscured from the view of the appellant driving north on the county road. There was brush and a grove of trees about 12 feet high extending from the southeast corner of the intersection along the south fence of the township road completely obscuring the view of a traveler on the county road proceeding north, at least until he would arrive at the corner of the intersection. Plaintiff was driving north on the county road on the extreme right or east edge of the gravel or traveled portion of the road. The defendant proceeding on the township road made a left turn into the county road, cutting very close to the southeast corner of the intersection, and, when his car came within view of the plaintiff, it was headed in a southwest direction immediately in front of the plaintiff's car and 30 or 35 feet distant. The plaintiff turned his car slightly to his left, and the collision occurred near the south line of the intersection. Both cars were damaged; the plaintiff's car turning over, both cars, however, remaining in the intersection. The defendant did not see the plaintiff's car until the collision occurred. Neither car sounded a signal or warning on approaching the intersection, and the plaintiff did not reduce his speed prior to the collision. When the collision occurred, the plaintiff's car skidded about 40 feet and turned over near the northwest corner of the intersection. The defendant's car remained standing, headed southwest about 4 feet from where the impact occurred. Plaintiff knew he was approaching the intersection and knew that his view of the intersecting road to the east was obscured. He did not slacken his speed or give any signal or warning that he was approaching the intersection. He does not testify that he had his car under control or that he was alert and watchful in attempting to see what might approach the intersection from the east. He apparently did not attempt to slacken his speed or stop his car or turn further to the right when he saw the defendant's car coming around the corner. At the close of the testimony disclosing the foregoing facts, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
The sections of the statute involved in this occurrence are the following: Section 5031 of the 1931 Code provides:
“The person operating a motor vehicle or motorcycle shall have the same under control and shall reduce the speed to a reasonable and proper rate: * * *
3. When approaching and traversing a crossing or intersections of public highways, or a bridge, or a sharp turn, or a curve, or a steep descent, in a public highway.”
And section 5043 provides: “An adequate signaling device shall in all cases be sounded on approaching curves, tops of hills, and the intersecting highways in the country where the operator's view is obscured.”
[1] It is conceded that both parties violated the last section, and the defendant claims that plaintiff also violated the first quoted section. As we have indicated, there were no stop or slow signs upon the east and west intersecting highways, and there is no showing in the record that the defendant was aware that the north and south road was a county highway. Had the intersecting roads been of equal classification, the defendant would have had the right of way over the plaintiff at the intersection because he was approaching plaintiff's car from plaintiff's right. Section 5035.
We have held that the failure of the operator of an automobile, in approaching an obscured intersection, to give any statutory warning signal of his approach, is an act of negligence. Carlson v. Meusberger, 200 Iowa, 65, 204 N. W. 432.
[2] There has been some confusion in our decisions as to the effect of the violation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial