Last Friday, the Alabama Court of Civil
Appeals issued its opinion in Pell v. Tidwell, No. 2120313.
Tidwell, who worked for the Municipal
Utilities Board of Albertville, was driving a truck with a lift bucket
northbound on Highway 431 in Albertville, where Highway 431 is a divided
four-lane highway with a grass median. Tidwell got into the left-turn
lane in anticipation of making a left turn onto Buchanan Road. Tidwell
observed Rucks’s Toyota in the paved portion of the median and obstructing his
ability to make his left turn. Based on the position of the Toyota,
Tidwell assumed that Rucks intended to pull onto Highway 431 to travel
north. Tidwell made a hand signal to Rucks to indicate that it was clear
for her to turn onto the inside, northbound lane of Highway 431.
Unfortunately, Rucks’s intention was to cross Highway 431 and she collided into
Pell’s vehicle that was traveling in the outside, northbound lane of Highway 431
and had the right of way. It was a clear day and there was nothing
obstructing Rucks’s view down Highway 431.
After Pell entered into a pro tanto
settlement with Rucks, Pell appealed the summary judgment which the trial court
had granted Tidwell and his employer. Pell maintained that, even if
Tidwell was under no affirmative duty to act, once he volunteered to make the
hand signal to Rucks, Tidwell was charged with the duty of acting with due
care. In rejecting Pell’s argument, the appellate court wrote:
“We agree … that a motorist’s hand
signal to another motorist to proceed does not absolve the signaled motorist of
his or her duty under Alabama law to ensure that it is safe to travel across an
intersection and to yield to oncoming traffic. This is especially true
when, as in this case, there are no unusual obstacles or obstructions.
“Because a driver cannot delegate his or
her responsibility for ensuring that it is safe to proceed across an
intersection, especially under normal driving conditions, i.e., when there are
no unusual obstructions or conditions, we now hold that, as a matter of law, a
signaling motorist cannot be held liable for negligence when the signaled
driver proceeds across an intersection without independently ensuring that it
is safe to do so.”
According to the appellate court, as a
matter of law, the proximate cause of the accident was Rucks’s breaches of the
Rules of the Road, and not Tidwell’s conduct.
One cannot help but conclude that the
critical fact was that Tidwell thought that Rucks wanted to turn onto Highway
431. Therefore, Tidwell signaled that it was clear to turn onto the
inside, northbound lane of Highway 431 without having made any determination as
to whether there was an approaching vehicle in the outside, northbound lane,
and was not “vouching” that it was safe to across Highway 431. Tidwell’s
truck was not obstructing Rucks’s ability to look for traffic in the outside,
northbound lane and Rucks apparently made no effort to see the Pell vehicle
before venturing to cross Highway 431.
