Schwandt v. Bates
Decision Date | 30 November 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 9318,9318 |
Parties | Lynn P. SCHWANDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwain M. BATES, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Paul C. Keeton, Owen L. Knowlton, Lewiston, for appellant.
Brown, Peacock & Keane, Kellogg, Daniel A. Quinlan, Lewiston, for respondent.
Plaintiff (appellant) seeks to recover damages for personal injuries and destruction of his pickup truck resulting from a collision of his motor vehicle with the pickup truck of defendant (respondent).
The accident occurred May 27, 1961, at about 1:30 o'clock a. m., at the intersection of Fifth Street which extends north and south and Warner Avenue which extends east and west, in Lewiston Orchards, Idaho. Other than the parties there were no eye witnesses at the scene of the accident.
Plaintiff in his complaint alleges that defendant's negligence proximately caused the collision and resultant damages. He alleges that as he entered the intersection from the north, driving south on Fifth Street, defendant, driving from the east on Warner Avenue, failed to stop before entering the intersection, although Warner Avenue was posted by a stop sign; that defendant negligently entered the intersection and stuck the left front end of plaintiff's pickup truck; that thereby plaintiff suffered damages because of personal injuries sustained necessitating medication and hospitalization, and destruction of his pickup.
Defendant by his answer denied the allegations of negligence and damage, and affirmatively alleged plaintiff's contributory negligence.
The cause was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed from the resultant judgment.
Plaintiff assigns error committed by the trial court in giving certain jury instructions relating to the last clear chance doctrine. Plaintiff asserts that the evidence adduced at the trial was insufficient to support the giving of an instruction relating to the doctrine.
In order to justify the giving of an instruction on the last clear chance doctrine there must be substantial evidence to support the giving of such an instruction. Allen v. Idaho Power Company, 84 Idaho 309, 372 P.2d 80 (1962); Hale v. Gunter, 82 Idaho 534, 356 P.2d 223 (1960); Ralph v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 82 Idaho 240, 351 P.2d 464 (1960); Laidlaw v. Barker, 78 Idaho 67, 297 P.2d 287 (1956).
Plaintiff and defendant were the only witnesses to the accident. Both testified that the visibility was clear and the road dry. Each testified that he was operating his vehicle at a reasonable rate of speed at the scene of the collision. Plaintiff's version of events relating to the accident appears from his testimony elicited on cross-examination as follows:
'
Plaintiff testified on direct examination that the 'flash' which struck his vehicle had come from the 'east'.
Defendant, on direct and cross-examination, gave his version of the events that transpired at the time of the accident. On direct examination:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
'
On cross-examination:
* * *
* * *
'
* * *
* * *
* * *?'
* * *
* * *
In an effort to ascertain whether the last clear chance doctrine is applicable our search of the record reveals only the testimony of plaintiff to the effect that he 'saw them two flashes and then a vehicle hit me'; and defendant's testimony as regards events which may have transpired at the scene of the accident, couched in language such as, 'I never knew there was another car involved'; 'I had seen nothing'; and 'I don't remember anything after I started up from the stop sign.' Plaintiff's testimony has no reference to any time element other than the 'flashes' and then the 'hit', indicative of only a very brief moment of time between the happening of those two events,--possibly, though lacking in proof, of longer duration. Plaintiff's testimony is negative in character entirely lacking in proof of a time factor for applicability of the last clear chance doctrine.
The doctrine not only requires that the chance be the 'last' chance, but also it must be a 'clear' chance. The instructions on the doctrine should not have been given since the evidence is insufficient to warrant giving them. There is an abundance of rulings by this Court to support the conclusion we have reached in the premises. In Cournyer v. Follett, 85 Idaho 119, 376 P.2d 707 (1962), the following appears:
'Plaintiffs contention that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the doctrine of Last Clear Chance is without merit. In Laidlaw v. Barker, 78 Idaho 67, 297 P.2d 287, this court held:
'Pursuant to the above rule the party seeking to rely on the doctrine of last clear chance, must show that the party charged with exercising the last clear chance had sufficient time to realize the danger, as well as an opportunity to have avoided the accident. See also Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179, 290 P.2d 744.
'* * * This Court has held that "the doctrine (of last clear chance) not only requires that the chance must be the 'last' chance, but it must also be a 'clear' chance." Allen v. Idaho Power Company, 84 Idaho 309, 372 P.2d 80; Lallatin v. Terry, 81 Idaho 238, 340 P.2d 112.
Graham v. Milsap, supra, contains the following statements:
* * *
* * *
* * *
'An instruction on the last clear chance doctrine should not have been presented to the jury, even though the complaint alleges negligence of the appellant [defendant], and the answer denies it and alleges the accident was caused by the negligence of the deceased, there being no evidence to support such doctrine. * * *
* * *
* * *
See also Allen v. Idaho Power Company, supra; Hale v. Gunter, supra; Ralph v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, supra; Laidlaw v. Barker, supra; Annot. 171 A.L.R. 365 (1947); Annot. 119 A.L.R. 1041 (1939); Annot. 92 A.L.R. 47 (1934); 38 Am.Jur., Negligence § 219, p. 905 (1941).
Plaintiff's assignments of error are meritorious. The trial court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury on the last clear chance doctrine because there is no substantial evidence to support thedoctrine. Allen v. Idaho Power Company, supra.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Costs to plaintiff-appellant.
The majority opinion holds that prejudicial error was committed by the trial court in instructing the jury on the 'Last Clear Chance Doctrine' for the reason there is no substantial evidence to support the giving of such instruction. With this conclusion I concur. I wish to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kuhn v. Dell
...on the last clear chance doctrine, there must be substantial evidence to support the application of the doctrine. Schwandt v. Bates, 88 Idaho 131, 397 P.2d 244 (1964); Allen v. Idaho Power Company, 85 Idaho 309, 372 P.2d 80 (1962); Hale v. Gunter, 82 Idaho 534, 356 P.2d 223 (1960); Ralph v.......
-
Vannoy v. Uniroyal Tire Co.
...Engle, 90 Idaho 63, 66, 408 P.2d 159, 160 (1965); Kuhn v. Dell, 89 Idaho 250, 253, 404 P.2d 357, 358-59 (1965); Schwandt v. Bates, 88 Idaho 131, 133, 397 P.2d 244, 245 (1964). In this case, there was insufficient proof of any negligence on the part of either Kelsey-Hayes or the Coats Compan......
- State v. Hall
-
Pierce v. Barenberg
...instruction. McIntire v. Engle, 90 Idaho 63, 408 P.2d 159 (1965); Kuhn v. Dell, 89 Idaho 250, 404 P.2d 357 (1965); Schwandt v. Bates, 88 Idaho 131, 397 P.2d 244 (1964); Allen v. Idaho Power Company, 84 Idaho 309, 372 P.2d 80 (1962); Hale v. Gunter, 82 Idaho 534, 356 P.2d 223 (1960); Lallati......