248 N.E.2d 204 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1969
Lead Opinion
On October 27, 1966, a dark but otherwise clear night, plaintiff was operating a farm tractor on *243 State Route 13 at a speed of four to five miles an hour, pulling two farm wagons loaded with soybeans. The highway was practically level and there were no obstructions of the view to the rear of the wagons for a long distance.
The tractor was lighted with a red light to the rear. On the rear of the second wagon was a red reflector and a triangular slow-moving vehicle emblem (SMV).
The defendant approached the wagons from the rear in the same line of travel and, being unable to stop within his assured clear distance, struck the left-rear corner of the rear wagon, damaging the wagons, spilling the soybeans, and causing his car to overturn on the left side of the highway.
Plaintiff sued in Municipal Court for damages proximately caused by defendant's negligence in failing to stop within the assured clear distance. Defendant testified that he was traveling 55 miles an hour, being 5 miles an hour over the prima facia lawful speed limit, and did not see the wagon in time to avoid striking it. One witness testified that she saw no lights on the defendant's car at the time of impact.
The case was tried to the court, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $984 plus costs. The amount of the judgment is not contested. The court's conclusions of law are:
"The defendant did not maintain an assured clear distance ahead in the operation of his vehicle.
"The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence and did comply with the requirements of the Ohio Code with regard to lighting and slow-moving vehicle emblem.
"The defendant's negligence proximately caused the injuries and damages to the plaintiff."
The assignments of error relate to the court's conclusion of law that the plaintiff did comply with the requirements of the Ohio Code with regard to lighting and slow-moving vehicle emblem. Specifically the questions which defendant, appellant herein, presents are:
"1. Do the statutes of Ohio require plaintiff-appellee *244 to have a red tail light on the rear wagon in addition to the slow-moving vehicle emblem and the reflector?
"2. Was the failure to have a red tail light on the rear wagon a contributing cause of the accident?"
Chapter 4513 of the Revised Code regulates equipment.
Section
"(G) Sections
It is our finding that the farm wagons used to haul grain in the operation of plaintiff's 250-acre farm fall within the classification of implements of husbandry and, therefore, with respect to equipment on such vehicles, are not subject to the regulations of Sections
The portions of Sections
"(A) All vehicles, including those referred to in Section
Section
"Every vehicle upon a street or highway within this *245
state during the time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise, and at any other time when there is not sufficient natural light to render discernible persons, vehicles, and substantial objects on the highway at a distance of five hundred feet ahead, shall display lighted lights and illuminating devices as required by Sections
It is our finding that under the exceptions provided in Section
If subsection (A) of Section
Sections
Section
"(B) All farm machinery * * * which is designed for operation at a speed of twenty-five miles an hour or less * * * shall display a triangular slow-moving vehicle emblem (SMV). * * *"
That section then provides specifications for the design and mounting of the SMV emblem.
Such subdivision (B) is likewise specifically made applicable to plaintiff's farm tractor and wagons, but there is no assigned error claiming that plaintiff did not comply with the provisions of subdivision (B) by properly displaying a regulation slow-moving vehicle emblem.
In answer to defendant's first question, our answer is that, in addition to compliance with Section
The finding of the Municipal Court that plaintiff did comply with the requirements of Ohio law with regard to lighting, when plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of Section
The second question presented by defendant, i. e., the question of proximate cause, presents an issue for the trier of the facts. Therefore, the cause is remanded for a new trial and further proceedings according to law.
Judgment reversed and causeremanded for a new trial.
VAN NOSTRAN, P. J., concurs.
PUTMAN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
Dissenting Opinion
I concur in the reversal of the judgment.
I respectfully dissent from the remand for new trial for the reason that I believe the evidence shows as a matter of law that the plaintiff's own negligence was a proximate cause of the collision.
I respectfully disagree with that portion of the opinion which is an express finding that the end wagon of two wagons being pulled in train by an agricultural tractor on the Ohio highways at night is exempt from the equipment requirements of Sections
I likewise respectfully disagree with that portion of *248
the opinion which is a separate express finding that the machinery in this case is exempt from the equipment requirements of Sections
My reasons for this disagreement are twofold:
First, I believe the conclusion reached by the majority, as well as the dissent, makes any finding whatsoever on these two points totally unnecessary to the conclusions reached or the order made.
Secondly, I believe that, if such a finding was in any way necessary to the legal validity of either opinion in this case, the equipment provisions of Section
The reason advanced for its inapplicability, that Section