Opinion
July 25, 1972.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Myrick & Smith, William E. Myrick, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Hemminger, McKendree, Vamos & Elliott, P. C. Gary H. Hemminger, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff, Zupon, brought this action to recover damages from defendant, Martin, for injuries received as the result of a collision between a motorcycle owned and driven by Zupon, and an automobile owned and driven by Martin. Trial was to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. Zupon appeals from the judgment entered on that verdict.
Zupon asserts two issues for review: first, that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that Martin was guilty of negligence as a matter of law; and second, that it erred in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
The evidence discloses that the accident occurred at the intersection of Ralston Road and West 60th Avenue in Arvada, Colorado. Martin was travelling northwest on Ralston and turned left to go west on 60th. She testified she pulled into the left turn lane, stopped, looked and saw nothing approaching from the opposite direction, made her left turn, and, when about half way across the west side of Ralston Road, saw, through the right window of her car, Zupon approaching. She accelerated in an attempt to get out of his way, but his motorcycle struck the right rear fender of her car.
The evidence further revealed that Zupon drove onto Ralston Road from a filling station about three-quarters of a 'short block' from the intersection and drove southeast to the intersection. The exact distance of his travel on Ralston Road was never established. Zupon testified he saw Martin's car in the left turn lane when he was approximately 200 feet away and that he was about fifty feet away when he realized she was completing her left turn. He then tried to go through the intersection in front of her at the same time she accelerated to get out of his way.
The record establishes conflicts as to whether Zupon was on the highway when Martin commenced her turn and, if so, how far from the intersection he was at that time. Zupon asserts that Martin violated an ordinance of the City of Arvada which states,
'16--1--2. Vehicle turning left.--The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.'
and that such violation constituted negligence as a matter of law. The determination of whether Martin had violated the ordinance was, however, a factual question for the jury to decide in the light of the conflicting evidence. The jury was given the proper instruction relative to the ordinance and the effect of a violation thereof, if any.
Roberts v. Fisher, 169 Colo. 288, 455 P.2d 871, reiterates the well recognized rule that the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and proximate cause are not to be taken from the jury and decided as a matter of law except 'on the clearest of cases where facts are undisputed and reasonable minds could draw but one inference' therefrom. This is not such a case and the issues of negligence and contributory negligence were properly admitted to the jury.
Judgment affirmed.
DWYER and PIERCE, JJ., concur.