Facts
- During an October snowfall on Highway 55, Douglas Ivan Lincoln drove southbound in a two-wheel-drive pickup with new tires, in excellent condition, and with weight in the bed.
- Road conditions were fairly clear earlier in the trip but were slick on Highway 55.
- Lincoln drove at a steady 40–50 mph when the rear of his pickup suddenly slid left toward the centerline.
- Lincoln did not brake and attempted to steer into the slide, but the pickup crossed the centerline at an angle and collided with a northbound vehicle occupied by Louis and Vonda Teply and their daughter, Sondra Bryant.
- The Teplys alleged Lincoln violated Idaho “rules of the road” statutes requiring drivers to remain on the right side and pass opposing traffic to the right, constituting negligence per se.
Issues
- Whether a driver who skids on unexpectedly icy roads and crosses the centerline is legally excused from compliance with safety statutes requiring travel on the right-hand side of the highway.
- Whether the jury was improperly instructed that icy conditions could excuse a statutory violation, permitting a verdict of no negligence despite an unexcused violation.
Decision
- The Idaho Court of Appeals reversed the judgment entered on the defense verdict.
- The court held Lincoln’s statutory violation (crossing the centerline) was not legally excused by icy road conditions and a resulting skid.
- The court ruled the excuse instruction improperly allowed the jury to treat icy conditions as a legal excuse beyond what Idaho law permits.
- The court set aside the jury’s no-negligence verdict and remanded for further proceedings to determine damages resulting from Lincoln’s negligence per se.
Legal Principles
- Violation of a highway safety statute designed to prevent the type of harm suffered by a protected class constitutes negligence per se.
- Under Idaho law, “legal excuse” for a statutory violation is narrowly limited; generalized adverse road conditions and skidding, without more, do not excuse crossing the centerline.
- When an instruction permits a jury to find a legal excuse not recognized by controlling precedent, a defense verdict resting on that excuse cannot stand.
Conclusion
The court held that Lincoln’s crossing the centerline in slick winter conditions was negligence per se and not legally excused by the skid, requiring reversal of the no-negligence verdict and remand for a damages determination.