*1 purpose per expense al- law. of the diem The and allowable Living Bill is uncertain indefinite. in House No. 645 lowance legis- amendment; office and other expenses deleted were expenses paid appropriations. other See Senate are from lative Bill No. 15. grants opinion addi- that the act effect our day per compensation Governor $20.00 to the Lieutenant
tional succeeding Legislature at the next and member of the and each grant Legislature, operative it will not be to but sessions of the during compensation for 1967 ses- services rendered extra provisions of Section in contravention sion because Leg- XII, provides the State Constitution which that Article grant "any compensation any public extra islature shall never * ** after have the services shall been rendered". officer may constitutionally opinion op- No. It is our House Bill prospectively. erate submitted,
Respectfully E. D. ROBERTS ALEXRENTTO S. HANSON CHARLES FRANK BIEGELMEIER Judges FRED HOMEYER J.
Presiding Judge. BERG, KRIENS,Respondent Appellant v. DE
(149 410) 21, 1967) (File Opinion March No. 10285. filed Rehearing 9, 1967 denied June *2 Hackett, Austin, Watertown, for defendant Hinderaker & respondent. *3 HANSON, Judge. injuries damages personal for an action to recover
This is resulting plain- collision. The minor two-car intersectional from a riding DeBerg, tiff, his father's car. Gary seat of was in the rear defendant, operated E. owned and car was The other John plaintiff defendant and a verdict for The returned Kriens. judgment denying from the order appeals and from the adverse for a new trial. his motion the issues of primary whether or not
The negligence properly to and submitted proximate cause were and reviewing pur for this jury. In the evidence the determined light to the ver most favorable pose it in the must consider we Accordingly, Body, N.W.2d 924. S.D. 90 77 dict. Hanisch Sunday, Decem about noon on appears occurred it the collision First Street and of First Avenue 1961 the intersection ber at Watertown, Street north First runs City South Dakota. of in the Both streets are and west. runs east and First Avenue and south cold, slippery straight. gray day were and there It was a level and throughout city. the spots all streets on traveling DeBerg First Street. Defend- north on was The car The two proceeding the same street. south on ant Kriens was opposite directions at from approaching Avenue First were cars distance, time, speed. occur- The collision and same about the making DeBerg First Avenue at the a left turn car was as the red of impact lane point in defendant's of was The intersection. mem- quadrant Several the intersection. of the southwest travel injured. including The DeBerg family, plaintiff were of the bers
505 right right DeBerg the front of defendant's rear side of the car and right damaged. telling DeBerg Mr. car Defendant admitted were just you". after "I saw Defendant the accident that never further DeBerg he first the car when he was 100 testified noticed about right feet from the I I intersection and "then looked to the and left, up looked the when I and looked he was there—I didn't anything going apply the brakes or because I didn't he think was me, got to turn in front so then after the when I out accident just him, I didn't I I said see meant didn't him I see before hit, you know." prin
Plaintiff relies for well reversal on two settled First, negligence DeBerg, ciples of law. of the driver John any, imputed plaintiff passenger, if cannot be to this minor who operation had no control over the motor vehicle in which riding, Tiede, He was Eads v. 186 N.W. Pember Fritts, Storberg, ton S.D. 228 N.W. Schumacher v. second, even if was John negligent negligence proximate and his plaintiff's was a cause injuries against recovery defendant would not barred under e., the doctrine of injury concurrent i. when an oc through negligence persons curs the concurrent of two which either, negli happened would not have in the absence of *4 gence parties proximate of both is considered to be the cause injured of the accident and person. both are answerable to the 520; Wipf, Johnson, Rumbolz v. 82 S.D. 145 N.W.2d Kotz v. 733; Becker, 81 S.D. 135 N.W.2d Rowan v. 73 S.D. 41 836; Hammond, N.W.2d and Krumvieda v. 27 N.W.2d application 583. principles In addition to the plaintiff of those negligence guilty contends defendant was of aas matter of law failing failing proper in to a maintain lookout and in to have his control, therefore, proper car under the trial court should have granted his motion except for directed on verdict all issues the damages. question of reasonably appears testimony from the that two the approached op
automobiles the First Avenue intersection from posite time, speed, directions at about the same the same driving away. the same distance Defendant was a late model steering. equipped power car power with brakes and was He 506
driving speed There is no lane of travel. at a lawful in his own When he first observed control his car. he lacked over evidence signal, DeBerg jury or no effec- could infer that no car the the given signal, the to turn left was the driver of of intention tive DeBerg requires Supp. 44.0317 which violation of SDC 1960 car in turning upon highway any from a a before the of vehicle driver safety can made line to see that such movement direct may operation any other vehicle be af- the of and whenever give plainly hand or mech- movement to a visible fected such signal of intention to of such other vehicle anical to the driver given signal sufficient dis- this must be a turn. To be effective warning give ample of the intended turn. to others tance ahead checking defendant looked for traffic east and west After DeBerg left in front car had turned forward and discovered the in the south- As the collision occurred of him in his lane travel. jury the quarter the could find of the intersection west 44.0316 which re- turn in violation SDC car made a shallow intending left at an inter- quires a to turn the driver of vehicle "approach for traffic to such intersection in the lane section to right highway and in to the center line of the the of and nearest intersection, turning beyond pass- pass the center of the shall turning right ing closely practicable thereof before as as Knorr, left". See Iverson v. 298 such to the vehicle 25; 28; States, D.C., F.Supp. N.W. Irvin v. United C.J.S. 367, p. Vehicles 912. Motor § circumstances, of defend
Under
negligence
properly
different
submitted to the
as
was
ant's
might
from the evidence
draw different conclusions
minds
regard.
dispute
only
or
such
facts are not in
are
It is
where
this
not differ that the issues
men could
that reasonable
negligence
questions
proximate
contributory
cause become
Bogh
Beadles, 79 S.D.
for court determination.
of law
Pedersen,
342; Napier
HOMEYER, P. concur. JI„ BIEGELMEIER,
ROBERTS and
dissent.
BIEGELMEIER,
(dissenting).
Judge
gave
undisputed
plaintiff's
It is
the driver of
automobile
a left
signal
approached,
turn
as he
entered and
turned
the inter-
it,
deny
section.
testimony
Defendant as a
did not
witness
his
being
he first saw the
auto when he was 130 feet from
point
thing
of collision in the intersection and the next
he
driving
saw was
"I hit
person
when
it". The court has held a
keep
an automobile must
a careful lookout to
a
avoid
collision
highway
Quissell,
with other
users. Aaker v.
60 S.D.
Hennrich,
N.W.
and Robertson v.
LININGER et ASSOCIATION, BLACK Appellant HILLS GREYHOUNDRACING (149 413) (File 1967) Opinion 10304. No. filed March