Sparkman v. Maxwell
18 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 226, 519 S.W.2d 852, 1975 Tex. LEXIS 205 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver's violation of a traffic statute may be legally excused if caused by an unreasonably confusing traffic signal, making the reasonableness of the driver's conduct a question of fact for the jury. Furthermore, a city can be held liable under the Texas Tort Claims Act for creating such a confusing signal if it fails to correct the dangerous condition within a reasonable time after receiving notice.
Facts:
- The City of Wichita Falls' Traffic Engineer, Harold Whitnell, ordered the installation of a novel traffic signal at the intersection of Fairway Street and Southwest Parkway.
- This signal was an experimental "red arrow" pointing left, a type that had never before been used in the state of Texas.
- The signal was installed on April 6, 1972, as a two-week test, approximately eight days before the accident.
- During the test period, the Traffic Engineer observed other drivers being confused by the signal, including two who drove through the red arrow.
- A city police officer also noticed the signal was causing confusion and traffic congestion, and twice radioed headquarters to report the problem and recommend its correction.
- On April 14, 1972, Mrs. J. T. Sparkman approached the intersection intending to turn left from the lane controlled by the red arrow signal.
- Mrs. Sparkman stopped at the signal, saw the arrow pointing in the direction she wanted to go, became confused by the novel signal, and proceeded slowly into the intersection.
- While in the intersection, Mrs. Sparkman's vehicle collided with a car driven by Mrs. Mary Louise Maxwell, who was proceeding lawfully through the intersection on a standard green light.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Mary Louise Maxwell and her husband sued Mrs. J. T. Sparkman and the City of Wichita Falls in a Texas trial court.
- In response to special issues, a jury refused to find Mrs. Sparkman negligent but found the City's Traffic Engineer was negligent and that this negligence proximately caused the collision.
- The trial court entered a judgment holding Mrs. Sparkman and the City jointly liable to Mrs. Maxwell.
- Mrs. Sparkman and the City appealed to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment against Mrs. Sparkman, finding her negligent as a matter of law, but reversed the judgment against the City, holding it was protected by governmental immunity.
- Mrs. Sparkman and Mrs. Maxwell (conditionally) sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas.
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's violation of a red traffic signal statute constitute negligence as a matter of law when the signal was a novel, confusing red arrow that the driver had never seen before?
Opinions:
Majority - Walker, Justice
No. A driver's violation of a traffic statute does not constitute negligence as a matter of law where the evidence raises a fact issue as to a legally sufficient excuse. The court applied the 'legal excuse' doctrine from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 288A, which excuses a statutory violation if the actor 'neither knows nor should know of the occasion for compliance.' The court reasoned that Mrs. Sparkman was confronted with a traffic signal she had never seen before, which evidence showed was confusing to other drivers. Her confusion, caused by the unreasonably confusing signal, was analogous to a driver being reasonably unaware of a duty, making her conduct a question of fact for the jury to determine reasonableness. Since the jury refused to find her negligent, she is not liable. Separately, the court held the City of Wichita Falls was liable under the Texas Tort Claims Act because the confusing signal was a 'condition' of property, and the City had received notice of the danger but failed to correct it within a reasonable time, thus waiving its governmental immunity.
Dissenting - Steakley, Justice
Yes. A driver's violation of a red traffic signal should constitute negligence as a matter of law, regardless of the signal's shape. The dissent argued that the majority's opinion effectively renders the doctrine of negligence per se 'impotent.' It is universally understood that a red light means stop, whether it is a circle or an arrow. Allowing a jury to excuse a violation of this fundamental rule due to 'confusion' empowers juries to dispense with reasonable statutory requirements based on flimsy excuses. Mrs. Sparkman undisputedly violated the red signal, and her conduct should not be deemed reasonable.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its application of the 'legal excuse' doctrine to a negligence per se claim, establishing that reasonable confusion caused by a government-created hazard can excuse a statutory violation. It shifts the determination of negligence from a question of law for the judge to a question of fact for the jury in such circumstances. The decision also clarifies the scope of the Texas Tort Claims Act, affirming that a city's waiver of immunity for a dangerous 'condition' of a traffic signal is triggered by its failure to act after receiving notice. This precedent protects drivers who act reasonably when faced with ambiguous state-created signals and holds municipalities accountable for experimenting with public safety without adequate safeguards.
