Opinion
Aug. 24, 1971.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Page 242
Vander Jagt, Odden & McCorkhill, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff in error.
Wormwood, Wolvington & Dosh, Richard W. Laugesen, Jr., Denver, Colo., for defendant in error.
SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge.
This case was transferred from the Supreme Court pursuant to statute.
Plaintiff in error, Konnerup, brought action against defendant in error, Baker, to recover damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Baker counterclaimed against Konnerup for his injuries. Trial was had to a jury which returned a verdict denying the claims of both parties. From this verdict and the judgment enterred thereon Konnerup alone appeals. He asserts as grounds for reversal that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the court erred in admitting an exhibit containing portions of a State highway manual; and admitting into evidence certain 'legal opinions.' We affirm.
Both parties and one eye witness testified as to the happening of the accident which occurred in the center or 'passing' lane of a three lane highway. There was a dispute in the evidence as to which of the two cars was the first to enter the lane. It was established that both cars had the right to enter the lane to pass slower vehicles, provided that the lane was clear of other autos.
The court submitted the case to the jury on the issues of negligence and contributory negligence of both parties. Neither party objected to the instructions given. Disputed questions of fact are for the jury's determination under proper instructions of the court. Blain v. Yockey, 117 Colo. 29, 184 P.2d 1015. In the instant case the proper instructions were given and, the facts being in dispute, we will not disturb the jury's determination.
The state highway design engineer and an employee of the highway department who was in charge of the painting of the stripes dividing the lanes on the highway in the area where the accident occurred testified on behalf of Baker. The two witnesses testified without objection relative to the design of the highway, the markings which divided the lanes at the scene of the accident, and the significance of the markings. They further testified, also without objection, that the highway design and the markings conformed to the portions of the highway manual contained in Exhibit 5 (hereinafter discussed). Since this testimony of the witnesses, which Konnerup now claims were legal opinions, were not objected to at the time of trial the question of their admissibility will not be reviewed on appeal. Adler v. Adler, 167 Colo. 145, 445 P.2d 906.
The witnesses also identified Exhibit 5 which was a properly authenticated copy of portions of the 'Colorado Manual on Uniform Highway Control Devices' which was adopted by the highway department pursuant to 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 13--5--9. The sections of the manual which appeared in Exhibit 5 contained instructions for the design of three lane highways and instructions for the various lines and other traffic control devices which were to be placed on such highways. This document was admitted into evidence over objection of Konnerup on the sole ground that the information contained in the document was immaterial. However this information was material to the issue of whether Konnerup (or Baker) violated any statute in driving in the center lane. The trial court correctly admitted it into evidence over this objection.
Judgment affirmed.
DWYER and PIERCE, JJ., concur.