Barnum v. Williams

504 P.2d 122 (1972)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P sued D for damages for personal injuries allegedly incurred when the motorcycle he was driving collided with the car D was driving. P was going uphill and rounding an extremely sharp curve to his left. D was coming downhill. Vista Avenue is divided into two lanes by a yellow line. The line is much closer to the curb on D's side. The jury could have found that the impact occurred on or near the line or on P's side of the line. The jury could also have found that when D observed P, P was riding on the centerline and leaning into the turn; D in the narrow lane was near the center line and became apprehensive that they might collide; the D applied his brakes and slid into P's lane and collided with the P. The trial court instructed the jury: 'In addition to common law negligence, there is also statutory negligence, which consists of the violation of a law which, for the safety or protection of others, requires certain acts or conduct or forbids certain acts or conduct. Were I to call your attention to any such law, a violation of such law is negligence in and of itself; with this exception: If you find that, under all the attending circumstances, a statute cannot or should not be complied with by a person exercising reasonable care for the safety of himself and others, then I instruct you that you may find that the failure to strictly observe the statute should be excused and should not be deemed negligence.' The jury found for the defendant and the plaintiff appeals, contending the trial court gave two erroneous instructions.