Laws v. Vance
| Citation | 100 Ohio App. 255,136 N.E.2d 134 |
| Parties | , 60 O.O. 216 LAWS, Appellant, v. VANCE, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 09 May 1955 |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A driver of a motor vehicle approaching an intersection in a lawful manner from the right may proceed uninterruptedly in the direction in which such vehicle is moving, but the absolute right of way thus conferred upon the preferred driver does not absolve him from exercising that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent driver having the right of way should exercise for his own safety.
2. In an action, wherein the evidence discloses that the plaintiff having the right of way at an intersection failed to observe a vehicle approaching such intersection from such driver's left, by looking at a time and place to make his looking effective, an inference of contributory negligence arises imposing upon such plaintiff the duty to produce evidence sufficient to equal or dispel such inference; but under such circumstances the giving of a special instruction on contributory negligence, couched in abstract phraseology without qualification, unduly emphasizes the issue of contributory negligence and is prejudicial to the plaintiff.
3. A request to charge that if the jury should find from the evidence that the plaintiff's own negligence directly caused or contributed in the slightest degree to cause the injuries complained of, then its verdict must be for the defendant, should be denied.
Adams & Bechtel, North Baltimore, for appellant.
C. H. Hock, Bowling Green, for appellee.
This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment entered on a verdict for defendant. The action for damages for personal injury arose out of a collision between an automobile driven by plaintiff and one driven by defendant. Plaintiff was operating his automobile in a northerly direction on Carter Road approaching its intersection with Poe Road. Defendant was operating his automobile in an easterly direction on Poe Road. The intersection is in open country. Neither road is a main thoroughfare. A 'slow' sign had been erected by county officials on the east side of Carter Road approximately 500 feet south of Poe Road. Except for a statement by plaintiff's witnesses that the 'slow sign' was erected to warn drivers of a dip or bump in Carter Road, the purpose for the erection of such sign is not revealed. The day was clear and the roads were dry. There was no obstruction to the view of either driver approaching the intersection.
In his petition, plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in:
1. Failing to maintain a lookout.
2. Failing to observe plaintiff's automobile and yield the right of way.
3. Operating his automobile at a rate of speed greater than proper under the circumstances.
The answer was merely a general denial.
The principal error assigned is the giving of the following special instruction to the jury, at defendant's request:
'I charge you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff's own negligence directly caused or contributed in the slightest degree to cause the injuries complained of, then your verdict must be for the defendant.'
The evidence discloses that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law in failing to yield the right of way to the plaintiff. Defendant testified that when he first observed plaintiff's automobile 'it didn't look like it was traveling fast at all, and then I would say that maybe 200 or 300 feet it might have picked up faster, because I looked to the left and when I looked the second time it was right there,' 10 or 12 feet away.
This evidence is insufficient to prove that the plaintiff was proceeding in an unlawful manner, thereby losing his right of way. Willard v. Fast, 75 Ohio App. 225, 61 N.E.2d 807; Schaefer v. Cincinnati St. Ry. Co., 75 Ohio App. 288, 62 N.E.2d 102; Meek v. Schwanbeck, 99 Ohio App. 83, 130 N.E.2d 834. Cf. Wade v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spitler v. Morrow
...in proceeding into and across the intersection'. This court recently held in Laws v. Vance, Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, 136 N.E.2d 134, that even the preferred driver lawfully approaching an intersection, in the exercise of ordinary care must look for a vehicle approaching f......