*1 P.2d 534 following This belief induced Prosser, from Law taken statement BRAMEL and B. Paul William 39, Ed.), Sec. Torts, (3rd Hornbook Series Respondents, Plaintiffs beginning page 220: v. COMMISSION, UTAH STATE ROAD dealing cases The earlier Appellant. Defendant position that there
with aviation took No. 11479. yet knowledge and common was not permit Supreme experiencе of its hazards of Utah. Court unexplained such a conclusion from Feb. technologi- rapid plane. crash of With began improvement, position cal now
change; and later cases all of the safety justifies the
agree that the record ipsa loquitur such a
application of res
crash, complete disappear- to the even ** * plane.
ance of a opinion concurring Chief Jus- of law there matter
tice indicates pilot could negligence unless the very seen the rock
should have
ripped open gas tank caused
fire. plane very landing a act crash crash land- unless the
would be over
ing compelled by circumstances is, It pilot had no control.
which the
therefore, necessary to look back negli- if landing to there was
crash part pilot which com-
gence on attempt
pelled it. him and remand it the case
I would reverse awarded costs should be
for trial. think plaintiff. Romney, Atty. Gen.,
Vernon B. Mark A. Madsen, Atty. Gen., City, Asst. Salt Lake appellant. Kipp Christian, Carman E. Gary and D. *2 of Kipp Christian, & City, Salt Lake respondents.
CROCKETT, Chief Justice. driver, Plaintiff truck William B. personal sues for injuries, and plaintiff owner, truck Paul Bramel sues for property damages, sustained when a 40,000 truck-trailer pounds loaded with traveling cucumbers northward failed to make a sharp temporary curve at the end Highway ap- of Interstate 1-15 its near proach Ogden to 31st in Street and over- Upon joined: turned.1 issues (1) as defendant Road Commission’s in failing post adequate warning signs approaching for traffic temporary end freeway, of the plaintiff- and (2) contributory negligence, driver’s the dis- trict court findings judgment made plaintiff. favor of the appeals, arguing Defendant that the evi- support finding neg- dence does not of its ligence, contrary, compels on finding plaintiff guilty contributory negligence, judg- and seeks law, ment a as matter of or in the alterna- tive, a new trial. through inclusive, 63-30-34, This action arose under the Utah Gov 63-30-1 U. Immunity ernmental Act See Sections O.A.1953. sharply curving lane is that the rule onto a one
It stated sometimes road n on ** survey is we appellate turn; review accomplish a 270° *. evidence light most favorable Notwithstanding the above party. prevailing But true ultimate fact defendant on the findings express has made where court negligence, its go issue of court did not rule on this The foundational otherwise. adopting all the the most favorable aspect procedure it is the plaintiff’s view the evidence to the facts; judge’s find the prerogative to tention, following but made the additional credibility of the judging this includes recital as the existence on the evidence, drawing witnesses highway: fairly may reasonable inferences whatever that at mоst the in- It is therefore more be derived therefrom. Mile”, “Freeway Ends at a cluded One survey say to. that on review we accurate the off- about one mile south of light in the the evidence favorable ramp, “All Exit” about Traffic Must favor; they may party findings, whichever off-ramp, one-half mile south of the two ap they and that will not be disturbed black Yellow 25 miles hour they supported peal substantial if mile from the about one-fourth *3 evidence.2 exit, red white chevron chan- several and the Interstate During construction of the nelizing signs, horizontal a black temporary ending Freeway a I-IS there was unlighted at or im- white barricade аp- it as for northbound traffic thereof exit, mediately 25 miles the north of Ogden. leaving in In proached 31st Street yellow sign at or hour black on required make freeway, to the traffic was immediately exit and black south of the around abrupt proceed and a rather turn edge of yellow north at the arrow to degrees) a circle (270 fourths of three * * exit; the *. finding pivotal detour. The lead it onto a de- the upon judgment the is not the question of concern here The fendant is: rests most favorable to the usual one as whether
*** find- support the will of the evidence place, view and That said time whether, assuming judgment, ings and but to by the State signs placed the failed by the signs as found the existence adequate, give reasonable sufficient aspects court, reviewing the other and dangerous and of the difficult notice light favorable the evidence the fact the existed condition which judgment, conclusions on findings his turn and required to be traffic would that . , P.2d 155. 2d Fuel Utah v. U. S. Co. Memmott ¡the to (1) negli- issues: pictures as defendant’s conceded that the were taken three and, gence plaintiff’s (2) non-negli- days after the accident and the signs after gence, justified. are changed. had been following testimony relates these proposition answer to the is to first pictures: applying gen- be found in the test found so
erally torts, throughout the law of Q. they Do show it itas was when the applicable which is also here: Did the de- happened? accident fendant discharge Road Commission its No, A. sir. duty exercising reasonable care under Mr. Van Drunen Road State Com- [for by adequate placing circumstances your Is it position : that mission] safety appropriate warning signs was the condition at the time acci- highway.3 traffic using dent? It is to that the be noted court’s Kipp plaintiff]: Mr. That is not [for quoted signs above somewhat my position. equivocal says signs existing in that it included “at listed in above most” those thеy’re Mr. Van Drunen: Then im- quotation. may suggest those This that if material and irrelevant. signs were there which could have been Kipp explained that he made most,” may “at there have been Nev- less. signs, claim as offering
ertheless,
decision,
purpose
for the
of our
photographs
physical
to show the
situation
let it
be
court
assumed
intended
highway generally,
doing
and in
so
signs
indicate that those were the
were
stated:
that,
there.
significant
except
It is
for the
they
The fact that
were taken
quoted
descrip-
finding, there is no further
days
three
later and that
were some
signs.
tion of
pictures
Certain
were
put up
new
doesn’t
thеir
affect
presented
they
But
evidence.
probative value.
very helpful,
may misleading,
fact
plaintiffs
agree
because both
changes
defendant
Whatever
in the
made
they
Commission,
purport
do not
to show the
was done
Road
*4
they
as
the
pur-
existed at
time of the accident.
fair assumption is thаt it
for the
was
In their
concerning
proffer
pose
reducing
danger
discussion
the
of
the
such acci-
of
pictures,
therefore,
of
parties
dents,
the
signs
counsel
both
that
the
duty
Bevis,
131,
3. As to
to
the
exercise reasonable
Provins v.
P.2d
70 Wash.2d
keeping highways
(1967);
(cid:127)care in
in safe condi-
v.
and see Edmunds
regard
signs,
Germer,
tion for
in
travel
to
see
12 Utah 2d
as even more any you these chev- Q. Did ever witness, Clyde aof disinterested signs or ron-type warning ? barricades along about Beutler, came motorist who а highway. this on the A. Not at plaintiff’s quarter of a behind mile difficulty had he also He said that truck. (cid:127) And, quarter mile say of a Q. within turn; that he abrupt making the himself ramp, you had or a half mile of this stopped to assist man and another seen of these? back: man went accident; that the other No, If I’d seen there vuere none. A. to down as signal cars slow what was them would have known area, because they coming into happening, going to have I was where came were several that time there go, any idea that but I didn’t have difficulty that and had the same around a turn there. there was turn. negotiating I had in pertinent: These further observations appear you difficulty it Q. did What According booklet the defendant’s they were observing them that from construction, presented in road having ?
55 n evidence, and lack adequate there should be amber flashers of warning signs, barricades, along- placed and he not able calamity. was mounted avoid them аt all such detours. There was side general The rules above stated there that neither evidence nor concerning prerogative trial court’s n place here. flashers finding the facts as to the issue of defend primary as discussed above ant’s
Under the facts equally are applicable persuaded not that the trial court’s his we determination issue nn determinationof part contributory of negligence on the of negligence charged plaintiff.4 be defendant Commission should exercising Road In preroga this n overturned. tive, his with recognized advantages of seeing the witnesses and all the evi of by principal point The made the defend- dence, his proximate conclusions that arguing must ant that Brooks cause of accident lack of reason guilty contributory negligence found of able care the defendant Commission according a matter his of law is not negligence on part of the driver excеeding testimony 35 own he was Brooks upon are matters which reasonable hour, by that at least miles differ, minds consequently could he sign: “Exit: 25 Per Hour” Miles judgment should be affirmed. Costs to n should have been warned a minimum plaintiffs (respondents). (All emphasis exit; feet and that in before the reason- added.) he been able reaction thereto should have able sufficient avoid to reduce his TUCKETT, JJ., CALLISTER and overturning. plaintiffs counter The cur. .argument referring dangerous n condition temporary which this exit created ELLETT, (dissenting). Justice truck out: that Brooks was a driverof 25 years’ had experience; that he I dissent. prevailing opinion think the accident; gives never before been in serious judge more credit to than huge and that with of the the momentum plaintiffs evidence warrants. 40,000 plus pounds of the negative regarding load truck-trailer testimony offered cucumbers, turn abrupt signs along highway. They because and their neg- proof contributory Co., 129, 185; 4. That burden of v. 33 Utah 93 P. Stickle ligence Co., 477, is on the defendant and same Pacific R. Union 122 Utah apply primary negli- rules gence issue P.2d 867. Ogden & v. N. W. R. Smith positively simply testified did not see them. The back. He witnesses positively. (a) the State testified witnesses for one mile from exit awas mile”; reading, “Freeway ends 1 (b) one- installed the foreman who sign read, half mile from exit a “All traf- he caused them to be erected testified that exit”; fic must (c) one-fourth mile from 14 and between during the week November the exit on each side the lanes 1966; he worked and November *6 read, h.”; “Speed of p. traffic limit 25 m. signs as follows: his erected with men and (d) big there were some red and white by inches white sign 48 inches 110 (a) one by feet, signs chevron 4 feet 8 6 about right-hand on green reflectorized the on feet placed the level of the road above and exit, one freeway the mile before side of one extending the other each behind with mile”; read, “End Interstate 1 which further to freeway into the force trаffic on white reflectorized (b) next black lane, being into a the single first one “All traf- by reading, inches 48 inches 110 strip; (e) the median were there exit”; point (c) at where fic the must some black and white barricades at the a black merged into two lanes three lanes freeway posts end of the on white which by read- yellow sign inches inches and 48 48 exit; pointing had to some arrows the ahead”; about ing, “Single (d) 700 lane and exit a right at the there was (f) by signs two inches feet before exit 48 the yellow sign lettering reading, with black yellow 60 on reflectorized inches black “25 miles an hour.” h.”; p. (e) six chevron reading, “Exit 25 m. by signs inches 96 inches red on white 48 It to see the difficult for me how apart feet on skids about reflectorized three all, negligent to be State can be at found ahead,” ar- reading, “Single and so lane so, I cannot assuming but it to be con- sin- ranged compel traffic to enter a the conduct driver of ceive of the of gle lane; six chevron (f) in addition contributorily anything as being truck yellow ar- signs, black on reflectorized one negligent. by inches; (g) 48 another row inches 96 as a fact trial court found sign; (h) and set chevron a of barricades up: following signs were' long on reflectorized feet black white signs. about feet behind the chevron reflectors, signs had That mаrkers placed been locations on trooper investigated the various who acci- notify- driver, freeway purpose said for the of dent was told the truck existing of signs ing advising motorists him that there were advise conditions, most ending; satisfy roadways and at freeway and to “Freeway Ends One himself, free- included troоper drove down Mile”, must guilty at a about one mile south be found to be (cid:127) off-ramp, Must as a regardless “All Traffic matter of law whether any Exit” south about one-half mile at If all. the free- end, miles off-ramp, on Yellow 25 did then two black the driver should not per speed signs it; end, about one-fourth have left and if hour it did then the exit, white driver red and should driving mile several have been at from a signs, speed a horizontal rate of channelizing as chevron to control the movements unlighted of his on white barricades truck. black
(cid:127) exit, a 25 immediately north or 6—46, Section provides: U.C.A. 41— yellow exit miles hour black on (1) person No shall a drive vehiсle immediately south sign at or highway speed greater at a than is north yellow at the arrow black prudent reasonable and under edge the exit. ditions having regard actual potential concluded in the next existing. He then hazards then In adequate, every give failed event 'that such so shall be controlled n rеasonable may necessary the dif- or sufficient notice of colliding to avoid with dangerous person, vehicle, ficult condition or other con- existed. veyance on entering highway compliance legal requirements with *7 require a reversal The evidence would duty persons of all due to use signs than judge if the meant to find fewer care. undoubtedly meant he enumerated. He find that there were at least the number [*] [*] [*] ‡ íjí S|i shall, (3) every The which he stated. driver of vehicle consistent requirements with the of sub- complain might ground There section, (1) division of this at an drive if of the had misled the driver * * * appropriate speed reduсed truck, but he speed ahead!” as “Full when approaching going around him. misled makes claim * * curve, *. see the simply that he not He claims did signs. me this failure This case seems To tome be one of too tributory speed defeat negligence which should much enough looking on part plaintiffs. plaintiff driver, 'the claims of the of the either one prevent recovery. of which would think a curve a driver who drives into freeway rapid -at the end at such a 270° curve in the main mentioned ;rate opinion that he turns his over nothing vehicle means unless know we right-hand' from the taken since it below picture curve.
the radius freeway, it accentuates matter; side in this involved the curve shows *8 actually what amount of the curve over it
was. the trial would reverse court.
HENRIOD, (concurring in the Justice
dissent ELLETT). Justice
I concur in Mr. ELLETT’s dis- Justice
sent, except photo end at the misleading since photo
thereof. This
it that were does reflect accident,
actually place the time unnecessary besides, picture
support main discredit the dissent
opinion. P.2d K_. Baby
In re ADOPTION OF Girl 11690.
No.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Feb.