*1 tached, BERBOHN v. PINKERTON et al. which being oper- truck was by ated at the time the defendant Theo- 10, 1953. No. 35228. Jan. dore Gannon. The said truck made a Rehearing Denied March U-turn on said the front end extending in a south- P. 2d easterly direction the south trailer, extending northwesterly direction near paved highway; body truck with trailer extended a dis- feet, completely blocking tance of from travel other ve- hicles; the automobile in which riding Lena Mae Porter was into ran the west side of the of said trailer resulting collision, and from the Mrs. injuries resulting Porter received in her

immediate death. petition specifically alleges the said defendant Theodore Gannon knew, known, or should have paving slab on said at said point only wide, was of said each the shoulders paving on each side of said slab were making wide, left and in a U-turn, or in with said place, time such said high- completely said truck would block traveling upon to all vehicles period of time for necessary to move said truck into the regular paving of traffic lanes on the said filed answers Each of the defendants Fisher, Ted plaintiff R. for denying generally allegations all of the in error. plaintiff’s plead- petition, and further Draper Grigsby, City, plaintiff’s guilty Oklahoma ed that was deceased contributory in error. rea- son thereof recover herein. not O’NEAL, petition J. The amended substantially alleges plaintiff’s case, that Lena Mae the close At riding Porter, 6, 1941, interposed a demurrer fendants guest aas driven automobile evidence her automobile was did not make out traveling easterly negli- in direction U. facie case establish Highway point approxi- gence. S. at a the de- The trial court sustained mately city judgment one-half mile west of the for de- murrer and entered judgment Watonga, Oklahoma, when the accident fendants. From order resulting plaintiff appeals. occurred rendered, death. presented Carl Pinkerton was The defendant The sole with trailer at- the owner of a established the facts whether *2 trial primary negli- of the Rev. Tom E. the cause who visited gence part morning on the scene of the the of of the accident driver of the February truck. The 1941. He testified that that Theo- shows Gannon, dore truck, there was a clear of land from the driver of the tract parked edge paved highway, the truck the north of in front of the the Grove distance of 70 feet to fence near the residence a short time before the acci- Grove Desiring dent The record discloses residence. involved. to return following interrogatives the and an- one-half mile east of the swers residence, Grove : he drove his truck on the and made a U-turn “Q. Now, Tom, question— another to the left. The of front the truck at the on You observed the that running there condition facing time of the accident was with reference to the tracks southeasterly direction, the motor ex- there, and the area there tending upon the shoulder on the south blacktop, immediately right north of the paved highway, side of Yes, the and the at Grove house? A. sir. the rear end of the trailer extended “Q. you if that distance of I’ll ask edge the northwest near north of enough for a in there is wide blacktop the of the In this complete truck U-turn to have made a position, highway the entire was block- is, highway? Yes, it be- back to the A. ed from traffic. The automobile oc- used cause it has been that since cupied by operated have have been there. The cars Mrs. Porter out heading coming up there and been back to made. ap- ran into the truck a U-turn after the proximately nine feet from the rear impact pushed end thereof. The the sideways truck some twelve feet “Q. you first went out there When morning easterly direction. this wreck on the the scene of any February 7th, of was there of Defendants assert that the driver leading fence such drive over that right operate the truck had a lawful No, they turns? A. where the drive then make their upon highway, shoulder, the went on the up goes fence. clear and this one turning no across the violated statutory provision rule of the road. “Q. change in no But there been has simplification The statement an over lay-out this itself since the of the land duty required under the circum- the of happened? No, far A. sir. As accident of the case. Under the undis- stances (cid:127)as I can there hasn’t.” see spaces puted two off facts there were Berbohn, witness, admin- Arthur The highway; immediately north of the deceased, estate of the of the istrator house, Grove of the and the of the accident visited the scene house, of Grove where and one east the morning the of length the 44-foot vehicle could have tract a clear there was he testified however, Gannon, made a U-turn. extending from the north of land method. The case can- chose the other feet, of 70 a distance by admitting right his not be resolved there residence, Grove use of the but must the in- no obstructions were the use a rea- decided on whether turning tract cars with terfere under the circumstances one highway. He also north of the of land disclosed. level tract was a there testified paved physical condition resi- right the of Grove east land of abutment, and the condi- its approximately feet in width. of dence lying between tion of the land sheriff, deputy tes- Baskins, a Merrill resi- and the Grove the the scene at he arrived truck had tified that defendant’s where the dence shortly collision after the prior the U- parked the accident been the car and the evidence is disclosed driver Gannon, Theodore cised ordinarily rests parked told him first he had instance with and it where facing reasonable men west in front of the Grove house would not differ or where the law defi- visiting and had Hicks, been Mr. his nitely prescribes duty the standard father-in-law, residence; the Grove may 'that properly interfere that he Watonga decided to return to ignore with or the determination paved had driven the truck fact-finding group.” highway and had made a U-turn toward We jury conclude that in the in- the east when the collision occurred. stant case should decide Baskins stated that the front end of of fact whether Gannon, the defendant his truck rested the dirt shoulder *3 having the choice, op- means of south of the eration in the circum- of the trailer rested on the north disclosed, stances here exercised at the time of the acci- degree care which a dent; that his truck and trailer 44 should have exercised under the exist- long position in its then ing circumstances. had blocked the entire We think the evidence is such as rea- In our view of the case the facts ques- men differ on the pleaded and established the trial negligence tion of nonnegligence, facie case of and therefore the demurrer to be submitted erroneously evidence was sus- sustaining the court erred in tained. murrer of the evidence. The case is reversed a new trial. A demurrer admits ARNOLD, C.J., WELCH, CORN, and every evidence, fact which the in the DAVISON, BINGAMAN, JJ., and con- slightest degree, prove, tends HALLEY, V.C.J., cur. GIBSON, all inferences and conclusions which JOHNSON, JJ., dissent. reasonably logically can be drawn WELCH, (concurring specially). J. therefrom; and if there is a conflict concur because I think the decision in evidence, that which unfavorable Carter, Adm’r, Pinkerton, v. ¡.he Okla. party against whom demur- 34, 842, controlling 146 P. 2d and is rer is directed considered with- binding See, this case. Gear, Pure Oil Co. v. 183 Okla. drawn. also, 95, Pinkerton v. 197 Okla. 389; 489, 83 2d Wallace v. First P. 169 P. 2d 192. 563, Bank, Okla. 2d P. National Wrightsman, 135; 175 Okla. Brown v. 189, 51 P. 2d 761. HIGHWAY INSURANCE UNDER- Phillips Co., Pet. In Caesar v. et WRITERS al. v. NICHOLS. 429, 559, 104 P. 2d we said: Okla. No. 35279. Feb. desiring vehicle “The driver of a turn across make a left between Rehearing Denied March intersections should exercise 255 P. 2d 263. attempting it, precaution before extra frequent than as such turns are less intersections, therefore not antici- pated extent same travelers.” Transportation Lamb, v. In Union Co. we 123 P. 2d said: Okla. requirements “A determination same be exer- of due care as the