Winn v. Schmid
| Decision Date | 03 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 11511,11511 |
| Citation | 531 P.2d 569,96 Idaho 479 |
| Parties | William Paul WINN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Walter SCHMID, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Peter J. Boyd of Elam, Burke, Jeppesen, Evans & Boyd, Boise, for plaintiffs-appellants.
William F. Gigray, Jr., of Gigray, Downen & Gigray, Caldwell, for defendant-respondent.
On the evening of November 20, 1971, at approximately 6:00 p. m., plaintiff-appellant William Paul Winn was traveling east from Nyssa, Oregon to New Plymouth, Idaho in his 1971 Subaru station wagon. The road upon which he traveled, S.W. First Avenue, Payette County, was oiled, approximately twenty-five feet in width, and contained light grades and numerous intersections.
Defendant-respondent Walter Schmid was traveling east on the same road at the same time driving a Model 720 John Deere tractor pulling a two wheel manure spreader. Mr. Schmid had been working in a mint field on the north side of the road, and the spreader was loaded with mint roots to a height of approximately 10 inches above the sidewalls. The spreader was light green in color and the roots were brown.
The appellant drove his station wagon into the rear of the spreader and there was no evidence that he attempted to stop prior to collision. As a result, the appellant suffered severe personal injury in the form of a fractured hip, fractured right leg, fractured right arm, and lacerations of the head. Action was instituted in conjunction with his parents, William H. Winn and Bonnie Lee Winn, for the recovery of damages resulting from the accident including medical expenses, loss of automobile, and loss of wages.
The evidence presented at trial is uncontradicted that the appellant was traveling at a rate of 55 m. p. h. speed on a county road posted 50 m. p. h. The appellants was proceeding on his own side of the road, his headlights were on high beam, and it was dark. It is further uncontradicted that the respondent was traveling at a slow rate of speed with no lights or reflective devices of any sort on the rear of the manure spreader. Three lights were functioning on the tractor-two on the front and one in the middle of the rear. Given the before described load on the spreader, controversy exists as to whether light was visible from the rear.
The appellants allege that William Paul Winn's injuries were the proximate result of Schmid's failure to take necessary care and precaution to avoid a collision in pulling a manure spreader without lights. The respondent answers alleging that appellant's injuries were proximately caused by his own negligence, i. e., overdriving his lights.
The jury returned a verdict finding the appellant and respondent each 50 percent negligent. They further found that the appellants sustained no damages. Upon being polled, two jurors dissented from the apportionment of negligence and three jurors dissented from the failure to find damages. From the judgment in favor of the defendant the Winns perfected appeal.
The appellants assign error to the giving of trial court instruction number 14. It reads as follows:
The appellants argue that the above instruction is an incomplete statement of the law, and when read in conjunction with number 15 led the jury to the inescapable conclusion that the plaintiff was at least as negligent as the defendant. Instruction number 15 reads:
'You are instructed that a violation of any of the above mentioned Idaho Code Sections constitutes negligence per se.'
In the case of Hawkins v. Chandler, 88 Idaho 20, 396 P.2d 123 (1964) this Court was faced with the similar question of operating a vehicle within the radius of its lights. At issue was the propriety of the trial court in overruling an objection to the question whether the defendant was driving at such speed that upon seeing an obstruction in the road, he could stop his car before striking it. The Court in the Hawkins case held that the duty to stop was not absolute, but that overruling of the objection to the question was not prejudicial error due to the giving of instruction number 35 as follows:
In the case at bar, no instruction similar to number 35 was given, and without the additional statement we agree with the appellants' position that the jury is led to the erroneous belief that the duty to stop within the radius of one's headlights is absolute.
Furthermore, the language contained in instruction number 14 given in this case was specifically disapproved in Hawkins. Referring to the following language,
'Generally it is negligence as a matter of law, or at least strong evidence of negligence for a motorist to operate a motor vehicle on a highway at such a speed that the vehicle cannot be stopped within the distance within which objects can be seen ahead of the vehicle'
the Court stated that the above was incorrect and in conflict with the law since 'it is not negligence as a matter of law to drive a motor vehicle at night at such speed that it may not be stopped short of objects appearing in the radius of its headlights.' We agree with the holding in Hawkins that the giving of the second sentence in instruction number 14 was error and prejudicial.
The appellants next argue that the jury's failure to find damages was in disregard of instruction number 23 and therefore constituted error. Instruction number 23 reads as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Randall v. Ganz
...support their position with sufficient authority. Such contentions are too indefinite for consideration by this Court. Winn v. Schmid, 96 Idaho 479, 531 P.2d 569 (1975); Close v. Rensink, 95 Idaho 72, 501 P.2d 1383 (1972); Paullus v. Liedkie, 92 Idaho 323, 442 P.2d 733 (1968); Idaho Supreme......
- Huyck v. Hecla Min. Co.
- Springer v. Pearson, 11157