Rowedder v. Rose, 38212
Citation | 199 N.W.2d 18,188 Neb. 664 |
Decision Date | 23 June 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 38212,38212 |
Parties | Dolly ROWEDDER, Appellant, v. Roybert L. ROSE et al., Appellees. |
Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A left turn across a public highway between intersections is fraught with danger, and one making such a movement is required to exercise a degree of care commensurate with the danger.
2. When the driver of a motor vehicle turning across a highway between intersections fails to look to the front and rear for oncoming traffic at a time and place when to look would be effective, or looks and negligently fails to see that which is in plain sight, or is in a position where he cannot see, a question for the court is usually presented.
3. Driving at the speed defined by statute, when such definition sets a maximum speed and also includes the requirement that such speed be reasonable and proper, having regard for the traffic, the use of the road, the condition of the road, and a requirement not to exceed a rate of speed such as to endanger the life or limb of any person, is not negligence in absence of other evidence indicating fault.
4. The duty to sound a signal warning of the approach of a motor vehicle depends largely on the circumstances of the particular case.
5. The admission or rejection of photographs in evidence is largely within the discretion of the trial court. Error may not be predicated thereon in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion.
Frederick S. Geihs, Omaha, for appellant.
Baylor, Evnen, Baylor, Curtiss & Grimit, Lincoln, for appellees.
Heard before SPENCER, SMITH and NEWTON, JJ., and STUART and BUCKLEY, District Judges.
This is an action for personal injuries and property damage resulting from an automobile accident. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, the trial court dismissed plaintiff's petition on motion of defendants and the plaintiff appeals.
The evidence shows that the collision occurred on May 27, 1969, at approximately 6:30 p.m. on U.S. Highway No. 136 about 6 miles east of Auburn. Plaintiff was riding in her automobile which was being driven easterly by her husband. They were proceeding to the farm home of plaintiff's niece, and at the point of collision were in the act of turning left into this farm driveway at the same time that the automobile owned by defendant Clifton, and being driven easterly by defendant Rose, was overtaking and passing plaintiff's car. The highway was a hard-surfaced roadway, 22 feet wide, with a painted centerline. Visibility was good and the roadway was dry. Prior to the accident, the defendant Rose was traveling between 55 and 63 miles per hour, and plaintiff's automobile was 'going slow.' Plaintiff's automobile was in plain sight as defendant Rose overtook it for at least 1/4 mile before the collision. Defendant Rose turned on his left-turn signal, moved into the left lane to pass plaintiff, and at this instant the plaintiff's automobile 'veered over,' defendant applied his power brakes, and the collision followed, the right front of defendants' automobile colliding with the left rear of plaintiff's automobile. Defendant Rose did not sound his horn. At the point of impact defendants' left front wheel was 3 feet south of the north edge of the paved portion of the highway and the plaintiff's left front wheel was 2 feet north of the centerline of the highway.
Five people witnessed the accident; the plaintiff, the plaintiff's husband, the defendant Rose, the defendant Laura A. Clifton (passenger in defendants' car), and Paul L. Edmonds, a disinterested witness who was following defendants' automobile four to six car lengths. All five testified either personally or by deposition. None of these witnesses testified that plaintiff's husband gave any indication of an intention to change direction or speed, either by a hand or arm signal, a signal light or a brake light. The uncontradicted testimony is that he began his left turn across the highway at a point not an intersection without any warning of any kind.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence the trial court found as a matter of law that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of plaintiff's husband and that plaintiff's evidence failed to show that the acts of any of the defendants were a proximate cause of the accident.
The applicable statute provides: Section 39--7, 115, R.R.S.1943.
This court has stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Addair v. Bryant
...Jacobs v. Kimbrough, 376 So.2d 1273 (La.App.1979); Esponette v. Wiseman, 130 Me. 297, 155 A. 650 (1953). See also Rowedder v. Rose, 188 Neb. 664, 199 N.W.2d 18 (1972); Keller v. Wellensiek, 186 Neb. 201, 181 N.W.2d 854 (1970); Kruger v. Ervin Clark Const. Co., 166 Neb. 252, 88 N.W.2d 778 (1......
-
Maricle v. Spiegel
...court. In the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion, error may not be predicated upon such ruling.' " Rowedder v. Rose, 188 Neb. 664, 669, 199 N.W.2d 18, 21 (1972), quoting Peterson v. Skiles, 173 Neb. 470, 113 N.W.2d 628 In Schmailzl v. State, 176 Neb. 617, 126 N.W.2d 821 (1964), ......
-
Ambrosio v. Price
...A "left-hand turn across a favored public highway between intersections is a particularly dangerous" movement. Rowedder v. Rose, 188 Neb. 664, 667, 199 N.W.2d 18, 20 (1972). The degree of care that a motorist must exercise in making a left turn has to reflect this fact. The special duty of ......
-
Ybarra v. Wassenmiller
...depends upon the circumstances at the time, are Tews v. Bamrick and Carroll, 148 Neb. 59, 26 N.W.2d 499 (1947), and Rowedder v. Rose, 188 Neb. 664, 199 N.W.2d 18 (1972). In the final analysis, there is no merit to plaintiff's first assignment of The plaintiff insists that the question of hi......