## Facts

- Mary Rouleau and Doris Rouleau (a minor, suing by her next friend) brought two negligence actions against Maurice Blotner based on the conduct of Blotner’s servant/employee driving Blotner’s truck.
- On the morning of November 11, 1926, Blotner’s servant drove a heavy truck northbound on Birch Street in Derry, New Hampshire, intending to turn left (west) into South Avenue.
- There was a considerable flow of traffic coming from the opposite direction, and the truck proceeded at about five miles per hour while waiting for an opening to turn.
- When an opening appeared, and when the plaintiffs’ southbound automobile was about 150–200 feet away on a straight road with an unobstructed view, the truck began its left turn across the southbound lane into South Avenue.
- The driver of the plaintiffs’ car saw the truck near the intersection and thought it was standing still.
- After that observation, the plaintiffs’ driver confined his attention to the roadway within roughly twenty feet ahead of his own car and did not look again toward the intersection until he saw the truck across his path and about twenty feet in front of him.
- A collision occurred between the plaintiffs’ car and the turning truck, and the plaintiffs claimed personal injuries.
- The plaintiffs alleged negligence chiefly on the theory that the truck driver failed to give a left-turn signal; they also claimed the turn itself was careless under the circumstances.
- The jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs. The trial court denied the defendant’s motions for nonsuit and directed verdict, and the defendant brought exceptions.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant could be held liable for failing to give a left-turn signal when the evidence showed the plaintiffs’ driver would not have seen any signal even if it had been given.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a finding that the truck driver acted negligently in attempting the left turn when and as he did, given the speed, distance, visibility, and traffic conditions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire sustained the defendant’s exceptions and ordered judgment for the defendant.
- Even if the evidence could support a finding that no turn signal was given (a point the court found doubtful but did not decide), the absence of a signal was not a legal cause of the collision because the plaintiffs’ driver was not looking and would not have seen it.
- The evidence did not support a finding of actionable negligence based solely on the manner or timing of the left turn, because the truck driver proceeded slowly, waited for an opening, and could reasonably expect the oncoming driver to keep a proper lookout.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence is actionable only if it is a legal cause of the injury.
- A failure to give a visual signal cannot support liability when the undisputed facts show the other driver would not have perceived the signal even if it had been given.
- A driver may proceed in a reasonable way and may assume that other drivers will use ordinary care, including keeping a proper lookout, unless circumstances indicate otherwise.
- Where the only claimed negligence is either noncausal (such as a signal not seen) or unsupported by the evidence (such as an allegedly improper turn made under reasonable conditions), the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law despite a plaintiff’s jury verdict.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiffs’ driver was not watching the truck as he approached, any failure to signal could not have caused the collision, and the remaining evidence did not justify a finding that the slow left turn—made after waiting for a break in traffic on a straight, unobstructed road—was negligent; therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the plaintiffs’ verdicts and ordered judgment for the defendant.


Rouleau v. Blotner, 152 A. 916 (1931)