ALLEN v MOORE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12865 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1975 JACQUELINE ALLEN e t a 1. , P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , -vs WALTER S . YOORE, J R . , e t al., Defendants and Respondents, d p p e a l from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Zounsel of Record : For Appellants : Hibbs, Sweeney and Colberg, B i l l i n g s , Montana Maurice C o l b e r g a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondents : Moulton, Bellingham, Longo and Mather, B i l l i n g s , Montana William S. Mather a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana S m a l l , Cummins and H a t c h , Helena, Montana Robert GLzmmins a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Submitted: Decided : March 6 , 1975 - 8 1975 Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. I n t h i s c a u s e p l a i n t i f f s a r e t h e widow, p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , and c h i l d r e n of Eugene T y l e r A l l e n , d e c e a s e d , who b r o u g h t t h i s wrongful d e a t h and s u r v i v a l a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Sweet G r a s s County. Originally t h e defendants were Walter S . Moore, J r . , and one Barney L . H i t t , 111. A motion f o r summary judgment f o r H i t t was g r a n t e d p r i o r t o t r i a l . The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t f o r d e f e n d a n t Moore and judgment was e n t e r e d . From t h i s judgment and a n o r d e r denying a motion f o r a new t r i a l , p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l . An a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d November 27, 1971, a t approximately 9:40 a . m . , on I n t e r s t a t e 9 0 highway a b o u t 1 3 m i l e s w e s t of Big Timber, Montana. t h e t i m e were: The w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t i n g a t t h e sky was o v e r c a s t , it had been snowing, and t h e r e was s l u s h on t h e highway. The v e h i c l e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e c o l l i s i o n were: (1) a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l S c o u t v e h i c l e d r i v e n by Moore and i n which d e c e d e n t was i n t h e r i g h t f r o n t s e a t and o n e Ed S i l l s was i n t h e r e a r s e a t a r e a on a p l a t f o r m . sion. S i l l s was a s l e e p a t t h e t i m e of t h e c o l l i - The S c o u t was p r o c e e d i n g e a s t . ( 2 ) A Chevrolet s t a t i o n wagon, d r i v e n by G e r a l d C o s g r i f f , h i s w i f e Donna i n t h e r i g h t f r o n t s e a t , d a u g h t e r S a r a h on h e r m o t h e r ' s l a p , and t h e i r s o n s Edward and David i n t h e r e a r s e a t s . The C h e v r o l e t w a s p r o c e e d i n g west. The roadway where t h e c o l l i s i o n o c c u r r e d was s t r a i g h t and l e v e l , w i t h a broken c e n t e r l i n e p e r m i t t i n g p a s s i n g ; t h e r e was w e r e two l a n e s f o r t r a f f i c and t h e roadway/approximately 22 f e e t wide. C o s g r i f f e s t i m a t e d t h e speed o f t h e Scout a t t h e t i m e he f i r s t saw i t , a s b e i n g i n e x c e s s o f 5 0 mph. Moore e s t i m a t e d h i s speed p r i o r t o t h e c o l l i s i o n a t 3 0 t o 35 mph, b u t i n a s t a t e m e n t g i v e n on December 2 0 , 1971, he e s t i m a t e d h i s speed a t 40 t o 4 5 mph. The highway p a t r o l o f f i c e r e s t i m a t e d t h e speed of t h e S c o u t a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 35 t o 4 0 mph, based on t h e e x t e n t of t h e damage t o t h e v e h i c l e s . P r i o r t o t h e c o l l i s i o n Moore p a s s e d a v e h i c l e d r i v e n by C l a r e n c e R u s s e l l , a l s o t r a v e l i n g e a s t , a p p r o x i m a t e l y oneh a l f t o one m i l e b e f o r e t h e c o l l i s i o n o c c u r r e d . t h e c o l l i s i o n 150 t o 2 0 0 y a r d s t o h i s f r o n t . R u s s e l l saw Russell t e s t i f i e d he was t r a v e l i n g 25 t o 30 mph and h e t h o u g h t t h e S c o u t c o u l d have been g o i n g 4 0 t o 4 5 mph a t t h e t i m e i t p a s s e d him. C o s g r i f f ' s v e h i c l e was i n i t s l a n e of t r a f f i c and he t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he f i r s t o b s e r v e d t h e S c o u t i t seemed t o be under c o n t r o l . Then i t t u r n e d toward t h e c e n t e r o f t h e r o a d ; t h e r e a r s l i p p e d t o t h e r i g h t a l i t t l e b i t ; then t h e Scout turned a g a i n , t h i s t i m e t o t h e r i g h t and t h e r e a r s l i p p i n g t o t h e l e f t ; t h e n i t s l i p p e d around a g a i n and came back s o t h a t t h e r i g h t s i d e f r o n t of t h e was coming towards h i m , s l i d i n g sideways. The/Cosgriff v e h i c l e h i t t h e Scout on i t s r i g h t s i d e . This impact occurred near t h e edge o f t h e o i l i n C o s g r i f f ' s l a n e . R u s s e l l t e s t i f i e d he saw t h e a c c i d e n t happen, and it looked l i k e t h e S c o u t k i n d o f t u r n e d sideways and went a c r o s s t h e r o a d and t h e y h i t . When t h e y h i t t h e snow f l e w up, g i v i n g t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f smoke, and t h e S c o u t went on i n t o t h e borrow pit. Defendant Moore t e s t i f i e d : "Q. M r . Moore, i s n ' t i t t r u e t h a t you had n o t e d on your t r i p t o Montana t h a t when t h e r e was snow on t h e highway d r i v e r s would d r i v e t h e i r v e h i c l e s i n such a manner t h a t t h e i r l e f t wheels would be on t h e c e n t e r l i n e o f t h e highway and t h e i r r i g h t wheel i n t o t h e i r l a n e of t r a f f i c on two l a n e highways, s o t h a t t h e r e were o n l y t h r e e b e a t e n t r a f f i c zones down t h e highway. I s t h a t a custom t h a t you n o t e d when you were o u t h e r e ? A . Yes, s i r . Immediately p r i o r t o t h i s a c c i d e n t and when you f i r s t saw t h e o t h e r v e h i c l e , i s n ' t it t r u e t h a t you w e r e d r i v i n g i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h a t custom w i t h your l e f t wheel on t h e c e n t e r l i n e o f t h e highway? A. Yes, s i r , I w a s , o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y where I c o n s i d e r e d t h e c e n t e r l i n e o f t h e highway. "Q. "Q. And was t h e C o s g r i f f v e h i c l e , o r t h e o t h e r v e h i c l e , a l s o b e i n g d r i v e n i n t h a t same manner? A. I am n o t a t a l l p o s i t i v e how he was d r i v i n g h i s vehicle. "Q. You d i d n ' t s e e whether h i s l e f t wheel w a s on t h e c e n t e r l i n e ? A. I saw h i s v e h i c l e . I am n o t a t a l l p o s i t i v e t h a t he had h i s l e f t wheel on the center l i n e o r not. "Q. NOW, i s n ' t i t t r u e t h a t you f e l t s i n c e your l e f t wheel was on t h e c e n t e r l i n e t h a t you had t o t u r n i n t o t h e r i g h t - h a n d l a n e of t r a f f i c t o some d e g r e e t o be o u t of a c o l l i s i o n c o u r s e w i t h t h e C o s g r i f f v e h i c l e ? A . Not n e c e s s a r i l y a c o l l i s i o n c o u r s e , b u t it would come e x t r e m e l y c l o s e t o a n oncoming c a r , y e s , s i r , and I d i d f e e l t h a t I would have t o move o v e r , t h a t i s c o r r e c t . "Q. So t h e n i n f a c t d i d you move o v e r ? sir, I did. A. Yes, "Q. And d i d you t h e n move i n t o t h e s l u s h ? A . I b e l i e v e w e were i n t h e s l u s h t h e e n t i r e t i m e . I d i d have t o move o v e r , y e s , s i r . "Q. NOW, when you moved o v e r i s n ' t it t r u e t h a t your v e h i c l e v e e r e d s h a r p l y t o t h e r i g h t , t h e r e a r p o r t i o n of your v e h i c l e . A . Yes, s i r , it d i d , it did s l i p t o the right. "Q. Would you d e s i g n a t e t h e n t h a t i t v e e r e d s h a r p l y t o t h e r i g h t , i s t h a t t h e way you would d e s c r i b e i t ? A. Well, I would assume s o , y e s , s i r . I d o n ' t know what you c a l l s h a r p l y . The back of t h e v e h i c l e q u i t e quickly s h i f t e d t o t h e r i g h t . "Q. And d i d t h e f r o n t of t h e v e h i c l e t h e n p o i n t toward t h e c e n t e r of t h e highway? A . To t h e c e n t e r , y e s , s i r , i t would have had t o . "Q. And t h e r e a r of t h e v e h i c l e moved toward t h e s o u t h e r l y borrow p i t I t a k e it of t h e highway? A. Y e s , sir. "Q. Did t h e v e h i c l e move i n a n o b l i q u e manner down t h e highway toward t h e C o s g r i f f v e h i c l e ? A . A t t h e moment d i r e c t l y a f t e r t h e t i m e t h a t it s l i p p e d ? Yes. Is t h a t what n e x t happened? A. I would say t h a t it s l i p p e d going s t r a i g h t f o r j u s t an undetermined amount of f e e t . "Q. "Q. Okay. And t h e n a f t e r i t s l i p p e d g o i n g s t r a i g h t d i d i t t h e n s l i p o b l i q u e l y toward t h e C o s g r i f f v e h i c l e ? I g u e s s I mean a c r o s s t h e highway toward Yes, s i r , i t d i d . t h e C o s g r i f f v e h i c l e ? A. "Q. Did you h i t t h e b r a k e s ? A. Yes, s i r , I d i d . "Q. And d i d you keep t h e b r a k e s l o c k e d u n t i l t h e t i m e of i m p a c t ? A . Y e s , sir, I did. "Q. So t h e sequence o f e v e n t s t h e n , i f I u n d e r s t a n d you c c r r e c t l y , i s t h i s t r u e , you were d r i v i n g w i t h your l e f t wheel o n t h e c e n t e r l i n e , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. Yes, s i r . "Q. You t h e n moved t o t h e r i g h t i n t o t h e r i g h t - h a n d l a n e of t r a f f i c , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. Yes, s i r . " Q . And when you d i d t h a t t h e r i g h t r e a r p o r t i o n of your v e h i c l e s l i p p e d t o t h e r i g h t p u t t i n g t h e f r o n t p o r t i o n toward t h e c e n t e r o f t h e highway, i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. Yes, s i r . "Q. A. And t h e n you h i t t h e b r a k e s , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? Y e s , sir. And you moved o b l i q u e l y down t h e highway and "Q. Yes, s i r . s t r u c k t h e C o s g r i f f v e h i c l e ? A. "Q. Did a n y t h i n g e l s e happen between t h e t i m e you s l i p p e d and t h e t i m e you h i t t h e C o s g r i f f v e h i c l e ? A. Yes, it d i d . "Q. What happened? A. A t t h e t i m e t h a t I saw t h e C o s g r i f f c a r I d e t e r m i n e d t h a t I would have t o move t o m right. y I s t a r t e d t o move t o m r i g h t , a t y which t i m e t h e back of t h e v e h i c l e s l i p p e d s h a r p l y t o t h e r i g h t . A t t h e time t h a t t h e v e h i c l e s l i p p e d M r . A l l e n a s I s a i d was a s l e e p o v e r on t h e r i g h t hand s i d e , o r s e m i - a s l e e p . It s t a r t l e d M r . Allen and he s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h t h e s l i p p i n g he grabbed t h e s t e e r i n g wheel. A t t h e p o i n t t h a t he grabbed t h e s t e e r i n g wheel I c o m p l e t e l y panicked and slammed on t h e b r a k e s . A t t h e t i m e t h a t I slammed on t h e b r a k e s t h e v e h i c l e s l i d from t h a t p o i n t on c o m p l e t e l y o u t of c o n t r o l u n t i l it h i t t h e C o s g r i f f a u t o m o b i l e . And you c l a i m t h a t A l l e n grabbed t h e s t e e r i n g "Q. Yes, s i r , I do. wheel? A. "Q. A. Do you c l a i m he s a i d a n y t h i n g a t t h a t t i m e ? Yes, s i r , I d o . IQ. What do you c l a i m he s a i d a t t h a t t i m e ? s a i d you a r e g o i n g t o l o s e i t . " A. He Moore i n h i s answer r a i s e d t h e d e f e n s e of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of t h e d e c e d e n t . The q u o t e d t e s t i m o n y i s t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e of t h a t c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e . S i n c e i t was inconsistent with prior statements, it was used for the purpose of impeachment. One statement was given by Moore on December 20, 1971, and after the statement was read to Moore he acknowledged there was nothing in the statement about decedent's grabbing or touching the steering wheel. Moore explained he did not read the statement before signing and that he was pressed for time. While the investigating officer talked to Moore at the accident scene and also at the hospital and heard nothing about decedent grabbing or touching the steering wheel, it is rather clear his questioning of Moore was at a time when he was distraught and disturbed and, as the officer stated: "As near as I recall he said I lost it in the slush. And it was just a general type conversation with no real hard interrogation or pushing of facts at this time." Moore talked to decedent's widow eight days after the accident, and testified: "Q. Now isn't it true, Mr. Moore, that at that time Mrs. Allen asked you concerning how this accident occurred. A. Yes, sir, she did. "Q. And isn't it true that you told her that you lost control of the vehicle in the slush and ran into the Cosgriff vehicle? A. Yes, sir, I did." Moore explained that it was out of feelings for the family that he made no mention of the fact that decedent had grabbed the steering wheel. Moore's deposition was taken by one of plaintiffs' counsel on January 22, 1974, and therein Moore claimed that the decedent had grabbed or touched the steering wheel prior to the impact. On the same day a deposition was taken of Barney L. Hitt, 111, the owner of the Scout, and who at that time was still a defendant in the case. Hitt stated he had a conversation with Moore about two weeks after the accident and in relating what Moore told him, he stated: "He said that -- he said that just before they got to Big Timber, that he lost control of the car for one reason or another and it went into the -- into the left lane and struck the Cosgriff vehicle head-on. He said at that time it swerved and went into the left lane, that he was trying to regain control of the vehicle when Gene Allen grabbed the wheel, and that at the time of the collision, he and Gene were struggling at the wheel. " Hitt could not recall whether the conversation was at his home or by phone. Moore claimed the conversation occurred over the telephone. Plaintiffs raise these issued on this appeal. Was the district court in error in: (1) Permitting the reading of the deposition of Hitt as a prior consistent statement after impeachment? (2) Allowing instructions on contributory negligence on the part of plaintiffs' decedent? (3) Failing to direct a verdict on the liability issue at the end of plaintiffs1 case? (4) Refusing a portion of plaintiffs1 offered instruc- tion concerning section 32-2152, R.C.M. 1947? Issue 1, was it error to admit into evidence the Hitt deposition? As we have heretofore related defendant Moore, at the trial, testified that after the Scout had slipped to the right, decedent grabbed the steering wheel. Thereafter he was impeached by the use of his statement of December 20, 1971, which omitted any reference to decedent grabbing the steering wheel. Other instances have been referred to previously. Plaintiffs contend that Kipp v. Silverman, 25 Mont. 296, 302, 64 P. 884, (1901) is decisive in that, in their view, this Court held that prior consistent statements are not admissible to rehabilitate an impeached witness where the motive to falsify was t h e same a t t h e t i m e of t h e c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t a s a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l . Defendant c a l l s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t made by Moore c o n t a i n e d i n t h e H i t t d e p o s i t i o n was on o r a b o u t December 1 2 , 1971, two weeks a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t and e i g h t d a y s b e f o r e t h e December 20 s t a t e m e n t . A l s o , b e f o r e any s u i t w a s i n s t i t u t e d and b e f o r e any motive f o r f a b r i c a t i o n e x i s t e d and c o r r o b o r a t e s Moore's t e s t i m o n y and t h e r e f o r e would be a d m i s s i b l e . Defendant a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t Kipp f o l l o w e d a p r e v i o u s s u i t o v e r t h e property involved. B e f o r e t h e second s u i t was commenced Kipp e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t and w r o t e t h e l e t t e r s complained o f , and t h e r e f o r e t h e c o u r t t h o u g h t t h e y were sham and a f a b r i c a t i o n . Kipp d i d n o t s t a t e t h a t t h e r e w a s i n Montana no e x c e p t i o n t o t h e hearsay r u l e but s t a t e d : "To t h i s r u l e one e x c e p t i o n i s r e c o g n i z e d by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d . Where it i s c h a r g e d t h a t t h e s t o r y of t h e w i t n e s s i s a f a b r i c a t i o n , owing t o a n i n t e r e s t a c q u i r e d i n t h e r e s u l t of t h e c a s e s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e t i m e a t which t h e s t a t e m e n t i n q u e s t i o n was made, t h e n t h e s t a t e ment may be a d m i t t e d on t h e t h e o r y t h a t i t was d i s i n t e r e s t e d , and t h e r e f o r e p r o b a b l y t r u e . " Both p a r t i e s have c i t e d e x c e r p t s from a n n o t a t i o n s a p p e a r i n g i n 1 4 0 A.L.R. 2 1 , and 75 ALR2d 9 0 9 . These q u o t a t i o n s c o v e r a m u l t i t u d e of s i t u a t i o n s a p p e a r i n g i n t h e c a s e s used a s a u t h o r - ity. W e f e e l t h a t one s t a t e m e n t a p p e a r i n g i n 75 ALR2d 918, i s p a r t i c u l a r l y f i t t i n g here: "While, a s t h e c a s e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e a n n o t a t i o n i n d i c a t e , it i s w e l l r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a s a g e n e r a l r u l e t h e t e s t i m o n y of a w i t n e s s c a n n o t be b o l s t e r e d up o r s u p p o r t e d by showing t h a t h e h a s made s t a t e m e n t s o u t o f c o u r t s i m i l a r t o and i n harmony w i t h h i s t e s t i m o n y on t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d , t h e r u l e i s r e l a x e d o r n o t a p p l i e d where t h e w i t n e s s h a s been impeached o r h i s c r e d i b i l i t y assailed. "The purpose o f a d m i t t i n g p r i o r c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e ments i s n o t t o p r o v e t h e p r i n c i p a l f a c t s t o be e s t a b l i s h e d , and i n d e e d , t h e y a r e n o t a d m i s s i b l e t o do s o , b u t o n l y t o show t h a t t h e w i t n e s s h a s been c o n s i s t e n t i n g i v i n g t h e same n a r r a t i v e of f a c t , and t h a t h i s former s t a t e m e n t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s sworn t e s t i m o n y a s g i v e n a t t h e t r i a l , and t h u s t o some e x t e n t remove s u s p i c i o n t h a t h i s t e s t i m o n y h a s been f a b r i c a t e d o r c o l o r e d t o meet t h e e m e r g e n c i e s of t h e c a s e o r t h a t h i s r e c o l l e c t i o n h a s v a r i e d and i s t h e r e f o r e n o t t o be r e l i e d upon. " R e g a r d l e s s of t h e form of impeachment, t h e t r i a l judge s h o u l d be and i s a l l o w e d a r e a s o n able discretion i n receiving o r rejecting evid e n c e of p r i o r d e c l a r a t i o n s of a w i t n e s s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s t e s t i m o n y , and t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s l o a t h t o d i s r e g a r d an e x e r c i s e o f s u c h d i s c r e t i o n e x c e p t i n a c l e a r c a s e of a b u s e . " From t h e t o t a l r e v i e w of t h e law and t h e e v i d e n c e , we d o n o t b e l i e v e t h e t r i a l judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n p e r m i t t i n g t h e admission of t h e H i t t d e p o s i t i o n i n e v i d e n c e . I s s u e 2 , concerns t h e giving of t h e c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence i n s t r u c t i o n by t h e c o u r t . While p l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t even i f d e f e n d a n t Moore's v e r s i o n of t n e a c c i d e n t a s t e s t i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l i s b e l i e v e d , t h e d e c e d e n t would have been, a s a m a t t e r of law, i n a sudden p o s i t i o n of p e r i l n o t b r o u g h t a b o u t by h i s own n e g l i g e n c e which r e quired i n s t a n t a c t i o n t o avoid a threatened danger. H i s activi- t i e s i n a t t e m p t i n g t o s t r a i g h t e n t h e wheel, a l t h o u g h on h i n d s i g h t n o t t h e b e s t o r s a f e s t way t o s a v e h i s l i f e , w e r e s t i l l t h e a c t s o f a n o r d i n a r y p r u d e n t p e r s o n under s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Moore testified: " A t t h e t i m e t h a t I saw t h e C o s g r i f f c a r I d e t e r m i n e d t h a t I would have t o move t o m y r i g h t . I s t a r t e d t o move t o m r i g h t , a t y which t i m e t h e back of t h e v e h i c l e s l i p p e d sharply t o the right. A t the t i m e t h a t the v e h i c l e s l i p p e d M r . A l l e n a s I s a i d was * * * asleep. I t s t a r t l e d M r . A l l e n , and h e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h t h e s l i p p i n g grabbed t h e s t e e r i n g wheel. A t t h e p o i n t t h a t he grabbed t h e s t e e r i n g wheel, I c o m p l e t e l y p a n i c k e d and slammed on t h e b r a k e s . A t t h e t i m e t h a t I slammed on t h e b r a k e s , t h e v e h i c l e s l i d from t h a t p o i n t on c o m p l e t e l y o u t of c o n t r o l u n t i l it h i t t h e Cosgriff automobile." A r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s t e s t i m o n y would be t h a t Moore d i d n o t f e e l t h e Scout was o u t of c o n t r o l and t h a t b u t f o r t h e f a c t d e c e d e n t grabbed t h e wheel he would n o t have had t h e a c c i d e n t . The t e s t i m o n y of Moore i s s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e giving of t h e standard c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence instruction. T h i s C o u r t h a s s a i d innumerable t i m e s t h a t one w i t n e s s may be s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f a c a s e , and even i f t h a t e v i d e n c e i s i n h e r e n t l y weak, it c a n s t i l l be deemed substantial. Campeau v . Lewis, 1 4 4 Mont. 543, 398 P.2d 960, (1965). I s s u e 3 q u e s t i o n s t h e d e n i a l o f p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on l i a b i l i t y . T h i s motion was grounded on t h e t h e o r y t h a t Moore had been shown t o be n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law a t t h e t i m e he c l a i m e d d e c e d e n t grabbed t h e s t e e r i n g wheel, and d e c e d e n t c o u l d n o t have been c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t based upon t h e t h e o r y of sudden emergency. W e c a n n o t a c c e p t t h i s p r e m i s e i n view o f o u r h o l d i n g a s t o t h e g i v i n g of t h e c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n . We f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e d e n i a l of t h e motion. I s s u e 4 c o n c e r n s t h e r e f u s i n g o f a p o r t i o n of p l a i n t i f f s ' o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n c o n c e r n i n g s e c t i o n 32-2152, R.C.M. S e c t i o n 32-2152, R.C.M. 1947. 1947, r e a d s : " D r i v e r s of v e h i c l e s p r o c e e d i n g i n o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n s s h a l l pass each o t h e r t o t h e r i g h t , and upon roadways h a v i n g w i d t h f o t n o t more t h a n one (1) l i n e of t r a f f i c i n e a c h d i r e c t i o n e a c h d r i v e r shall. g i v e t o t h e o t h e r a t l e a s t one-half ( 1 / 2 ) of t h e m a i n - t r a v e l e d p o r t i o n o f t h e roadway as n e a r l y a s p o s s i b l e . " While p l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h e r e was ample t e s t i m o n y t o j u s t i f y t h e i n c l u s i o n of t h i s s t a t u t e i n t h e o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n , d e f e n d a n t a s s e r t s i t would n o t have any a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s a c c i d e n t . I t a p p e a r s t o u s t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d w h i l e t h e v e h i c l e s were p a s s i n g and t h e t r i a l c o u r t committed no e r r o r i n r e f u s i n g t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n which was n o t w a r r a n t e d by t h e facts. The judgment i s a f f i r m e d . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: of M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
