This is an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in an automobile collision. The jury returned a verdict for defendants, and plaintiff аppeals.
The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in refusing to hold that the defendants were negligent as a matter of law, and in failing to withdrаw from the jury the defenses of contributory negligence in general and certain specific allegations of contributory negligence in pаrticular.
The collision—a chain reaction affair—occurred on McLoughlin Boulevard in Clackamas county, early on a wet morning in November, 1961. Plaintiff was traveling north in the inside lane of the four-lane highway, and was following about one and one-half car lengths behind a car driven by a Mr. Borаn. Directly behind plaintiff’s car was a Chevrolet pickup driven by defendant Lamb, and next in line was a Ford pickup *242 driven by defendant Laubsch. Traffic northbound was heavy and plaintiff’s car and the vehicles following him were moving along with the traffic at a speed of about 25 to 30 miles per hour.
Plaintiff testified that Boran suddenly applied his brakes, causing the tail lights of his car to flash and brought his car to a stop, that plaintiff “slammed on” his brakes and his car slid оr skidded to a stop, turning as it stopped so .that the left front wheel was over the yellow center line and the car was sitting at an angle. There was evidence that before plaintiff’s car stopped it collided with the car ahead of it, although this was denied by plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that an instаnt after his car came to a stop it was struck two hard blows from the rear, and that the right side of his car was driven against the rear of the car аhead.
Defendant Lamb admitted that he was traveling about two car lengths behind plaintiff at about 30 miles per hour; that when he saw the plaintiff’s car sliding to a stop he applied his brakes and turned to his left, and that the right rear corner of his pickup collided with the left rear side of plaintiff’s cаr. Defendant Laubsch testified that he was following about three car lengths behind Lamb at about 30 miles per hour; that the front of his pickup collided with thе left rear corner of the Lamb vehicle. The jury could have found, however, that the Laubsch pickup collided directly with plaintiff’s vehicle. There was evidence that the traffic ahead of plaintiff stopped because of a wreck about 100 yards or so ahead on the highwаy.
Plaintiff’s first assignment of error alleges that the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. Since the motion for a new trial was based only on alleged errors committed during the trial, the denial
*243
of the motion may not be assigned as error on appeal. See
Clarizo v. Spada Distributing Co., Inc.,
Plaintiff also assigns as error the denial of his motion to strike all of the allegations of contributory negligence in the affirmative answers of both defendants. The motion was in effect a request that the court hold as a matter of law that plaintiff was not guilty оf any of the negligence alleged in the answers.
Owens v. Goss,
Plaintiff next assigns as error the refusal of the court to instruct the jury that both defendants were negligent, and that thеir negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, and that the sole question for the jury was the extent of the damages suffered by plaintiff. The court did not err in refusing to give this requested instruction. In the first place, the instruction ignores the effect of plaintiff’s contributory negligencе, which was for the jury. We also hold that whether the defendants were negligent was for the jury. Plaintiff relies on
Lehr v. Gresham Berry Growers et al,
Plaintiff assigns as error the refusal of the court to strike from the answers of both defendants the allegation charging plaintiff with “stopping his automobile without first giving a hand or other visible signal to the dеfendants of his intention so to do.” We think no error was committed in submitting this issue to the jury. The applicable statute provides as follows :
“ORS 483.126 (1) The driver of any vehicle upon a highway before starting, stopping or turning from a direct line shall first see that such movement can be made in safety. * * * Whenever the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by such movement he shall give a proper signal which is plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle of the intention to make such movement.
“(2) The signal required by subsection (1) of this section shall be given either by means of the hand or аrm or by an approved mechanical or electrical signal device. * * *”
In
Voight v.
Nyberg,
“* * * The vehicles which may be affected by the movement of the vehicle starting, stopping or turning from a direct line include vehicles approaching from the rear. This is made clear by paragraph (2) which specifically provides that the signal to the driver of the vehicle affected by the *245 movement must be visible both to the front and rear.
“The term £in safety’ as used in the above section is not limitеd to the safety of the driver of the vehicle starting, stopping or turning from a direct line, nor to the safety of the drivers or occupants of oncoming cars, but includes the safety of all other people on the highway, including the drivers and occupants of vehicles approaсhing from the rear. ® * *”
Plaintiff testified that his car was equipped with a stop light which flashed on when he applied the brakes. The statute requires a proper signal of the intention to stop. A proper signal is a signal adequate to give a reasonable warning. It was a question of fact for thе jury whether under the circumstances of this case the signal given by plaintiff constituted a reasonable warning of his intention to stop.
Plaintiff’s last assignment оf error alleges that the court erred in denying his motion to strike from the answer of defendant Laubsch an allegation that plaintiff was negligent “in following too closely behind other traffic proceeding ahead of him.” In
Garland, v. Wilcox,
*246 We think the questions of negligence, contributory negligence and causation were all properly submitted to the jury. We find no error, and affirm the judgment.
Notes
483.312 “(1) The drivеr of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and condition of the highway. *****”