|
Blaak v. Davidson
Author: Richard
P/S: Trial court jury brought in a verdict
for the D; trial court entered JNOV (judgment entered for one
party even though jury verdict has been rendered for the opposing
party); D appealed
F: D was driving an 18,000 pound
gasoline truck; a dust cloud engulfed the truck and completely
obscured visibility; D reduced his speed to 5 to 10 MPH; truck
struck the rear of the P’s car, which had slowed to 2 to 3
MPH
I: When the visibility of a driver of
a vehicle is completely obscured by atmospheric conditions is the
driver negligent as a matter of law for failure to stop the
vehicle or should the question of negligence be submitted to the
jury to determine based on surrounding circumstances?
H: “A consideration of whether an
absolute rule should be formulated must focus upon the subject
matter involved and the potential variables as to facts and
circumstances.”
Rule: When vision is obscured, the
jury should determine whether failure to stop constitutes
negligence under the general test of whether act was consistent
with a reasonable man.
R:
- Attempt
to set absolute rule had proven unworkable and unjust
- “Only
in the most unusual and exceptional circumstances
indicating clear fault and liability should the court
hold defendant negligent as a matter of law”
|
