 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strub v. Stillmunkes Salvage and Trucking6/25/2003
ges the negligence jury instruction. Stillmunkes claims the negligence instruction, Instruction No. 13, was duplicative and submitted a specification of fault inapplicable to the case. The instruction reads in part:
The Plaintiffs claim that Defendant James Gerlach was at fault in that Defendant Gerlach was negligent in one or more of the following particulars:
A. In failing to yield one-half of the roadway to an approaching vehicle;
B. In failing to drive on the right half of the roadway;
C. In driving his vehicle too fast for existing condition;
D. In failing to have his vehicle under control;
E. In failing to keep a proper look-out;
F. In following another vehicle too closely.
Stillmunkes asserts fault specifications `A' and `B' are duplicative and `F' is inapplicable to the facts of this case.
Because of the apparent redundancy of specifications `A' and `B', Stillmunkes contends the theory of Strub's case is over-emphasized. Citing Spry v. Lamont, 257 Iowa 351, 330, 132 N.W.2d 446, 451 (1965), Stillmunkes also asserts, failing to drive on the right half of the roadway adds little to the instruction unless Gerlach was stopped on the left side of the road. Strub disagrees that the instruction is redundant as it is consistent with the Iowa Code. Iowa Code section 321.297(1) states: "A vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway upon all roadways of sufficient width. . . ." Section 321.298 states in relevant part, " ehicles . . . meeting each other on any roadway shall yield one-half of the roadway by turning to the right." Reading the two code sections together, the jury could have concluded Gerlach was not driving on the right-hand side of the roadway and he failed to turn to the right and yield one-half of the roadway when the Strub vehicle approached. We thus find the two submitted instructions not redundant and properly submitted to the jury.
Stillmunkes argues specification `F' is inapplicable as it serves to protect persons injured by a rear-end collision. Strub contends, however, that it is applicable as the accident was at least due in part to the dust churned up by the first vehicle. Strub further asserts because Gerlach was following the lead vehicle too closely, his visibility was decreased, causing the accident.
As Strub notes, the language of the code section, upon which specification `F' is based, does not specify that it is only to protect the person being followed too closely but rather all traffic. "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway." Iowa Code ยง 321.307. As the statute protects all traffic on the roadway, the specification was applicable and appropriate under these circumstances.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|