Summary: Plaintiffs were travelling southbound on a two-lane rural highway. Three vehicles were travelling northbound. The first vehicle slowed to make a left-hand turn. The second vehicle, allegedly a large truck, continued on at highway speeds and passed the first vehicle by entering the southbound lane passing the first vehicle, then returning to the northbound lane. The driver of the third vehicle alleged not to know that the first vehicle had slowed or stopped prior to the second vehicle pulling into the northbound lane. Upon seeing the first vehicle, the driver of the third vehicle also pulled into the southbound lane allegedly to avoid a collision with the first vehicle. When the second vehicle reentered the northbound lane, the driver of the third vehicle alleged to first see the oncoming motorcycle. The third vehicle attempted to return to the northbound lane, struck the first vehicle, then also collided with the motorcycle. The second vehicle did not make contact with any other vehicle. In its post-accident investigation the Oklahoma Highway Patrol determined that the driver of the second vehicle caused the accident due to inattention and failure to stop. Drivers of the first and third vehicles were dismissed from the case. The driver of the second vehicle moved for summary judgment.
Legal Issues: In order to successfully sue a party for negligence, the plaintiff must prove three things: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to protect plaintiff from injury (2) failure to fulfill that duty and (3) injuries to plaintiff proximately caused by defendant's failure to meet the duty. It is well-settled law that the driver of a motor vehicle owes a duty to every other person to operate that vehicle in a manner consistent with what a prudent person would do under the circumstances. Even if a driver is negligent in the duty to operate the vehicle, that negligence must have proximately caused plaintiff's injuries.
The Court held that the question of whether proximate cause existed is generally a question of fact and is only a question of law when there is no evidence from which a jury could reasonably find a causal nexus between the negligence and the injury. Questions of fact are to be determined by a trial and cannot be determined in a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Discussion: Justice Combs, joined by Justices Winchester and Taylor, filed a dissenting opinion. These justices would hold that the real legal issue was whether the driver of the second vehicle had a duty of care toward the plaintiffs, and that while the driver of a motor vehicle is under a duty of care to operate the vehicle, that a driver could not foresee that other drivers may act negligently or illegally. Looking to this lack of foreseeability, these Justices would have ruled as a matter of law that the driver of the second vehicle did not have a duty to the plaintiffs regarding the actions of the third driver.
No comments:
Post a Comment