Background
Angie Long sued Louise F. Saltzman for negligence arising from a 2017 vehicle collision on Manchester Road. Saltzman testified that she accelerated from a U-turn lane and crossed three lanes of traffic to enter a parking lot, striking Long, who was traveling at the speed limit in the far-right lane.
The jury awarded Long $115,000 but assigned 33 percent fault to her and 67 percent to Saltzman. The trial court reduced the award to $77,050. Long appealed, arguing that the comparative-fault instruction alleging she failed to keep a careful lookout lacked substantial evidentiary support.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the trial court improperly submitted the comparative-fault instruction. Although Long had a duty to maintain a careful lookout, the record contained no substantial evidence that she could have seen a danger in time to take effective action to avoid the crash.
Long was entitled to expect that Saltzman would not suddenly cross multiple lanes into her path. The evidence showed Long braked and swerved immediately after Saltzman entered her lane. Because the erroneous instruction caused the jury to assign Long 33 percent fault, the court reversed that portion of the judgment.
The court declined to order a new trial. The damages instruction expressly told jurors to determine Long’s total damages without reducing them for any fault assigned to her. Presuming the jury followed that instruction, the court modified the judgment to assign Saltzman 100 percent fault and award Long the full $115,000.
Key Takeaways
- A careful-lookout comparative-fault instruction requires substantial evidence that the plaintiff could have perceived the danger and taken effective evasive action.
- A motorist with the right to proceed need not anticipate that another driver will abruptly cross multiple lanes into her path without evidence of an observable warning.
- An appellate court may eliminate an unsupported comparative-fault reduction and enter judgment for the jury’s full damages award when the damages were separately calculated without regard to comparative fault.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that comparative fault cannot rest on speculation that an otherwise lawfully traveling driver should have avoided another motorist’s unexpected incursion. Defendants seeking a careful-lookout instruction must establish both visibility of the danger and a realistic opportunity for the plaintiff to prevent the collision.