Niven v. MacDonald
| Citation | 72 Wn.2d 93,431 P.2d 724 |
| Decision Date | 21 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 38601,38601 |
| Parties | Clement J. NIVEN and Patsy Gay Niven, his wife, Respondents, v. John MacDONALD and Ann MacDonald, his wife, and the marital community composed of John MacDonald and Ann MacDonald, Respondents, and Ervin Ludwick and Shirley J. Ludwick, his wife, and the marital community composed of Ervin Ludwick and Shirley J. Ludwick, Appellants. Ervin LUDWICK and Shirley, J. Ludwick, his wife, Appellants, v. John MacDONALD and Ann MacDonald, his wife, and the marital community composed of John MacDonald and Ann MacDonald, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Ferguson & Burdell, W. Wesselhoeft, Seattle, Charles T. Cole, Stanwood, for appellants.
Anderson & Hunter, J. P. Hunter, Julian C. Dewell, Broz, Long & Mikkelborg, Robert O. Wells, Jr., Richard F. Broz, Seattle, for respondents.
Two cases arising out of an automobile accident were consolidated for trial. Pending the hearing before this court on appeal, the Niven v. McDonald and Ludwick 1 action was settled and the appeal dismissed. Therefore, we are concerned only with the action between the plaintiffs-appellants (Mr. and Mrs. Ervin Ludwick) and the defendants-respondents (Mr. and Mrs. John MacDonald). The drivers of the respective vehicles involved in the accident were Mrs. Ludwick and Mr. MacDonald, and they will be referred to herein as though they were the only parties to the action.
Mr. MacDonald undertook to pass a column of four cars traveling east on a two-lane highway. Mrs. Ludwick's auto was the leading car in the column. As she undertook to make a left turn into a private driveway, her car was struck by the MacDonald vehicle. A drawing of the accident scene is reproduced here for illustrative purposes.
Mrs. Ludwick instituted this action to recover for personal injuries and property damage sustained as a result of the collision. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court dismissed the action, holding that she was contributorily negligent as a matter of law and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. The plaintiff has appealed, and the only issue is whether she was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
The trial court based its ruling upon two statutory violations: RCW 46.60.040 (now codified under 46.61.110), and RCW 46.60.120(4)(a) (now codified under 46.61.305(1)). The latter provides that:
No person shall turn a vehicle * * * to enter a private road or driveway, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. * * *
The plaintiff testified that she signalled to make a left turn into a private driveway and her signals were seen by the drivers of the two cars immediately behind her. She further stated:
A. * * * And I began to slow down, and I looked ahead and saw there were no cars coming from ahead of us, and then I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw there was a car behind me, a safe distance behind me, so I knew he was all right, and then just before I was going to turn--I slowed down to about, oh, between five and ten miles an hour to make the turn because it is a real sharp turn, and then I looked in my rear view mirror and I didn't see any cars behind me, and so I just went ahead into the turn. * * * Q. You looked forward to see that the highway was clear? A. Yes. Q. Looked in your rear vision mirror? A. Yes. Q. Before you did that you saw a car behind you? A. Yes. Then I looked back again in the rear view mirror on the side of the car. Q. The side rear view mirror? A. Yes. Q. And you didn't see any cars approaching? A. I didn't see any car, no.
Q. Do you have a specific recollection of looking into your side view mirror? A. Right before I went into the turn, yes, sir.
Q. * * * Can you give us an estimate of how much time elapsed between when you looked in your side view mirror and when you actually commenced your turn? A. Well, it's hard to say, but I am sure it was at least two seconds up to probably about five seconds, but it is hard to say. Seconds are kind of hard to estimate.
It is the plaintiff's position that her conduct met the required standard of care (reasonable safety) imposed upon her by RCW 46.60.120, and on appeal it is urged that what constituted reasonable safety was a question for the jury, not the trial court, to decide.
In making its determination the trial court stated:
Now, when does the law require her to make that last look? Is it seven seconds before she turned? I appreciate that counsel's illustration is that if she had looked she would not have been able to see this automobile; but if it was five seconds before she looked, she would have been able to see the automobile because it was there to be seen, there isn't any doubt about that. If she had looked immediately prior to her making this turn, she would have seen an overtaking vehicle. And if she had seen the overtaking vehicle, then according to 46.60.040 she was required to keep on the extreme right hand of the public highway until such vehicle had passed her. She did not do that. She attempted to make a turn, because she was not aware of this overtaking vehicle.
We do have a general criterion statute, counsel, that tells us we are under an obligation to keep a lookout in driving an automobile, and I think that that simply means this: that you have got to keep the kind of a look-out that is required when a certain situation presents itself, and I say when you are slowing down to five or ten miles an hour and you are going to make a left hand turn in a private driveway, you had better look if it is three seconds, two seconds, or one second before you make the turn.
Plaintiff cites Kaufman v. Sickman, 116 Wash. 672, 200 P. 481 (1921), and Burns v. Standring, 148 Wash. 291, 268 P. 866 (1928), in support of her contention that her alleged contributory negligence was a question of fact for the jury. The statutory restriction upon the left-turning driver, with which we are here concerned, was not enacted until some 25 years after the Burns decision. See Laws of 1953, ch. 248, p. 616. The cases relied upon by the plaintiff are not apposite to the question here presented as to whether her conduct measured up to the statutory requirement of 'reasonable safety' in the light of present-day traffic conditions and speeds.
Apart from statutes, the courts generally recognize the dangers frequently present in undertaking to make a left turn between intersections to enter a private driveway. 2 Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, § 1170.
The cases holding that a statute such as ours imposes an obligation on the left-turning driver to look to the rear before he turns, whether at an intersection or to enter a private road or driveway, are legion. A comprehensive review of cases involving left turns between intersections will be found in Fisher v. Reilly, 207 Or. 7, 294 P.2d 615 (1956).
A Nebraska decision involving a situation very much like the present case is typical. The court held that a driver was negligent, as a matter of law, in turning left across a highway between intersections without making a proper observation of traffic approaching from the rear. The following quotation from the opinion makes clear that the giving of the left-turn signal is not enough to meet the requirements of the statute.
The most dangerous movement on public streets or highways is the left-hand turn. While the left-hand turn at intersections is within the purview of this statement, the left-hand turn across a favored public highway between intersections is a particularly dangerous one. Legislatures have seen fit to regulate such movements and courts have required a degree of care commensurate with the danger. The language of our statute states that no person shall turn a vehicle from the direct course upon a highway unless such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving the statutory signal. In other words, the giving of the statutory signal is not enough, one must exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances. He cannot rely on holding out his arm and trust that all may see it. He must take reasonable precautions for his own safety and the safety of others before he undertakes a left turn between intersections where such movements are not anticipated.
One must look at a time when possible danger could be observed. The observations must be made immediately before the impending movement; otherwise, as in this case, the observation would be completely ineffective for the accomplishment of the purpose intended.
We think the correct rule to be applied in cases of this kind is: Where the driver of a vehicle turning across a street or highway between intersections fails to look at all at a time and place where to look would be effective, or looks and negligently fails to see that which is plainly in sight, or is in a position where he cannot see, a question for the court is usually presented. * * * (Petersen v. Schneider, 153 Neb. 815, 819, 820, 822, 46 N.W.2d 355, 358 (1951).
There was substantial uncontroverted evidence to support the trial court's statement that had the plaintiff 'looked immediately prior to her making this turn, she would have seen an overtaking vehicle.' The MacDonald car was in the passing lane continuously while passing the three cars which were following the plaintiff. The plaintiff had a clear and unobstructed view of the westbound lane behind her (the passing lane) for a quarter of a mile. The drivers of two of the following cars saw and heard the oncoming MacDonald car prior to the collision. The MacDonald car skidded in the passing lane for 109 to 112 feet before striking the rear portion of the plaintiff's car. Nothing occurred to confuse, deceive, or distract the plaintiff.
We have made it clear that whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyle v. Emerson
...decision has not been appealed. The plaintiff, albeit the favored driver, still had a duty to maintain a lookout, Niven v. MacDonald, 72 Wash.2d 93, 431 P.2d 724 (1967); Owens v. Kuro, 56 Wash.2d 564, 354 P.2d 696 (1960), and to exercise reasonable care for his own and others' safety. Mason......
-
State v. Brown
...presumes the driver is aware of other traffic or pedestrians. Tragically, this is not always the case. See, e.g., Niven v. MacDonald, 72 Wash.2d 93, 431 P.2d 724 (1967) (a driver failed to look for possible traffic immediately before beginning a left turn across a passing lane and collided ......
-
Western Packing Co., Inc. v. Visser
...he did not look to his rear immediately before turning; consequently, this instruction should have been given. Niven v. MacDonald, 72 Wash.2d 93, 431 P.2d 724 (1967); Hardtke v. Schanz, 6 Wash.App. 660, 495 P.2d 700 (1972). He cannot claim exemption from the requirement of looking to his re......
-
Ashcraft v. Wallingford, 1242-III
...such traffic in the passing lane immediately before initiating his movement renders him negligent as a matter of law. Niven v. MacDonald, 72 Wash.2d 93, 431 P.2d 724 (1967); Hurst v. Struthers, 1 Wash.App. 935, 465 P.2d 416 (1970). However, the issue is for the trier of fact if the evidence......