Deal v. Bowman

Supreme Court of Kansas
286 Kan. 853, 188 P. 3d 941 (2008)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a driver's vision is hindered, but not completely blocked, by a constant environmental condition, the question of whether the driver exercised reasonable care before proceeding and causing a collision is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the court.

Facts:

On September 17, 2002, around 5:50 p.m., Bradley Deal was traveling eastbound on Main Street, which had the right of way.
Alan Bowman, traveling south on Adams Street, approached the intersection with Main Street, which was controlled by a stop sign.
At that time of day, there was a significant glare from the sun in the western sky.
Bowman came to a complete stop at the stop sign and looked in both directions.
Bowman testified that his vision to the west was 'hindered' by the sun glare, and as a result, he did not see Deal's approaching vehicle.
Believing the intersection to be clear, Bowman proceeded into the intersection.
Bowman's vehicle then collided with Deal's vehicle, causing injuries to Deal.

Procedural Posture:

Bradley Deal filed a negligence action against Alan Bowman in Kansas district court (trial court).
At the close of evidence at trial, Deal moved for a judgment as a matter of law on the issue of Bowman’s negligence, which the district court denied.
The jury returned a verdict finding no fault on the part of either party.
Deal then moved for a new trial, arguing the evidence established Bowman's negligence as a matter of law; the district court denied this motion as well.
Deal (as appellant) appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that Bowman (as appellee) was negligent as a matter of law and remanding the case for a determination of damages.
Bowman (as petitioner) petitioned for review by the Kansas Supreme Court (highest court).

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a driver act with negligence as a matter of law when, after stopping at a stop sign, they proceed into an intersection while their vision is hindered, but not completely blocked, by sun glare?

Opinions:

Majority - Davis, J.

No, a driver does not act with negligence as a matter of law when they proceed into an intersection after stopping while their vision is hindered, but not completely blocked, by sun glare. The determination of whether the driver exercised ordinary care under such circumstances is a question of fact for the jury. The court reasoned that negligence is the failure to exercise the care of a reasonably prudent person, and this determination is almost always relegated to the jury. It becomes a question of law only when reasonable minds could not possibly differ on the conclusion. The court distinguished this case, where Bowman's vision was merely 'hindered,' from prior cases where drivers proceeded while their vision was completely 'blocked' by fog or dust, which was held to be negligence as a matter of law. Bowman's testimony that he stopped, looked carefully, and proceeded cautiously despite the glare created a factual dispute about the reasonableness of his actions. Therefore, it was proper for the district court to submit the question of negligence to the jury, and the jury's verdict should be respected.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high threshold for finding negligence as a matter of law, strongly favoring the jury's role as the fact-finder in tort cases. It draws a crucial distinction between a driver's vision being completely 'blocked,' where proceeding may constitute negligence per se, and merely being 'hindered,' where the reasonableness of the driver's actions is a factual question. This precedent provides a defense for drivers who exercise some caution but are involved in accidents due to difficult, but not impossible, environmental conditions like sun glare, affirming that the standard of care is that of a 'reasonably prudent person,' not one of perfection.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Deal v. Bowman (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature