Schulte v. Schultz
| Decision Date | 28 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 10907,10907 |
| Citation | 199 N.W.2d 39,86 S.D. 518 |
| Parties | Richard SCHULTE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Carroll SCHULTZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Loucks, Oviatt, Bradshaw & Green, Watertown, for plaintiff and respondent.
Paul O. Kretschmar, Eureka, Voas, Richardson, Groseclose & Kornmann, Aberdeen, for defendant and appellant.
In this action plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injuries sustained in a collision of plaintiff's automobile and defendant's parked haystack mover. The case was tried by the court without jury and the court found: (1) Defendant's haystack mover exceeded the maximum width of vehicles established by SDCL 32--22--3; (2) Defendant caused a steel haystack mover, which exceeded the size limitation prescribed by statute, to be on a public highway during a period between one-half hour after sunset and one-half hour before sunrise in violation of SDCL 32--22--2; (3) Defendant's stack mover did not have clearance lamps, SDCL 32--17--14; identification lamps, SDCL 32--17--29; nor lights, SDCL 32--17--27, on the haystack mover parked on the road and did not place flares out after bringing the vehicle to a stop on the road as contemplated by SDCL 32--17--29; (4) Defendant violated stopping and parking regulations, and (5) Defendant failed to yield one-half the main-traveled portion of the roadway to oncoming vehicles, SDCL 32--26--3. The defendant concedes the correctness of the findings set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4) above, but appeals from the court's finding in (5) and contends to the contrary that the plaintiff was on the wrong side of the road and such conduct constitutes contributory negligence which bars his recovery as a matter of law.
The collision occurred on November 20, 1965, between 5:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. (sunset by stipulation was 4:56 p.m.) on a county gravel road in Deuel County about seven miles northwest of Gary, South Dakota.
The defendant's employee Eric Koppen parked a tractor which was pulling a homemade steel haystack mover 14 feet 8 inches wide loaded with a stack of hay along the east side of the country road facing north preparatory to making a right turn 50 feet ahead into a field approach.
The haystack mover exceeded the width of the tractor three to four feet on each side. Koppen left the tractor and walked to the gate at the field approach. The defendant Schultz was following the haystack mover in his pickup truck and pulled along the west side of the parked haystack mover. He saw plaintiff's automobile approaching from the north (the opposite direction) and backed his pickup behind the stack mover. The tractor was equipped with two headlights which were in operation and there were no lights whatsoever on the haystack mover. The defendant's pickup lights were on, but the pickup was parked behind the stack mover in such a manner as to be invisible from a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. Plaintiff approached in his automobile from the north traveling at a speed of 30 to 40 miles per hour. He passed the tractor but the left front corner post of the left front door and windshield of plaintiff's car struck the front of the stack mover approximately one to one and one-half feet from the west side of the stack mover. After the collision plaintiff's automobile came to rest with the left side of the automobile under the bed of the stack mover. The top of the automobile was peeled back as it went under the bed of the stack mover, which was approximately waist high.
The sheriff of Deuel County, who investigated the accident, took a photograph of the vehicles and made measurements before the vehicles were removed from the scene. The measurements were made by the sheriff and the defendant Schultz, and recorded by the sheriff. The accuracy of the measurements is questionable due to the fact that defendant Schultz was not clear as to the precise position he had held the zero end of the tape. The sheriff made one independent measurement which showed the right rear wheel of the haystack mover had moved two feet to the east.
The main issue raised on appeal is who was on the wrong side of the road at the time of the collision, the plaintiff or the defendant. SDCL 32--26--3 provides:
'Drivers of vehicles proceeding in opposite directions shall pass each other to the right, each giving to the other at least one-half of the Main traveled portion of the roadway as nearly as possible.' (Emphasis supplied)
In that this case was tried to the court without jury, findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity the trial court had to judge the credibility of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown County v. Meidinger
...court had to judge the credibility of the witnesses. SDCL 15-6-52(a); Masek v. Masek, S.D., 228 N.W.2d 334 (1975); Schulte v. Schultz, 86 S.D. 518, 199 N.W.2d 39 (1972). While there is some testimony that prior to 1972 some cars were parked on Tract 8 near its boundary with Tract 9, it is h......
-
Masek v. Masek
...shall be given to the opportunity the trial court had to judge the credibility of the witnesses. SDCL 15--6--52(a), and Schulte v. Schultz, 86 S.D. 518, 199 N.W.2d 39. The final issue is, did the court abuse its discretion in granting custody of the children to the defendant. In awarding cu......
-
Peters v. Ramsay, 40
...for through driving or making a right turn, from the remainder of the highway, including the shoulder or berm, cf. Schulte v. Schultz, 86 S.D. 518, 199 N.W.2d 39, 41 (1972). The physical facts here must be viewed in light of that broad The evidence was uncontradicted in showing that other t......
-
Scott v. Wagner, 12332
...court had to judge the credibility of the witnesses. SDCL 15-6-52(a); Masek v. Masek, S.D., 228 N.W.2d 334 (1975); Schulte v. Schulte, 86 S.D. 518, 199 N.W.2d 39 (1972). The record provides ample support for the findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the WOLLMAN, C. J., and MORG......