emergency rule in Iowa

1969In fact, it was his duty to anticipate such changes as he approached the intersection. * * * *840 “In Harris v. Clark, 251 Iowa 807, 815 , 103 N.W.2d 215, 220 , we said: “ ‘In the cases denying the benefit of the emergency rule the party claiming the benefit has either had actual knowledge of a dangerous situation or in the exercise of reasonable care could have had such knowledge in time to act in relation thereto.’ “Defendant relies heavily on Harris v. Clark, supra, where defendant’s station wagon struck the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle as it stopped to allow an automobile preceding plaintif

1969In fact, it was his duty to anticipate such changes as he approached the intersection. * * * *840 “In Harris v. Clark, 251 Iowa 807, 815 , 103 N.W.2d 215, 220 , we said: “ ‘In the cases denying the benefit of the emergency rule the party claiming the benefit has either had actual knowledge of a dangerous situation or in the exercise of reasonable care could have had such knowledge in time to act in relation thereto.’ “Defendant relies heavily on Harris v. Clark, supra, where defendant’s station wagon struck the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle as it stopped to allow an automobile preceding plaintif

2018The challenge in Carlson was brought under both the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8, but no effort was made to distinguish Iowa constitutional law from prevailing federal precedent. 548 N.W.2d at 140 .

2018The challenge in Carlson was brought under both the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8, but no effort was made to distinguish Iowa constitutional law from prevailing federal precedent. 548 N.W.2d at 140 .

2002Jones, 387 N.W.2d at 352 . “[A] person is not entitled to the benefit of the emergency rule if it clearly appears [s]he either had actual knowledge of a dangerous situation or in the exercise of reasonable care could have such knowledge in time to act in relation thereto.” Rice v. McDonald, 258 Iowa 372, 380 , 138 N.W.2d 889, 894 (1965).

1978The ruling relating to excuse appears to be based, as to the statutory specifications in (a), on the legal excuse doctrine in Kisling v. Thierman, 214 Iowa 911 , 243 N.W. 552 , and as to the common law specifications in (a), on legal excuse under the emergency doctrine.

1978The ruling relating to excuse appears to be based, as to the statutory specifications in (a), on the legal excuse doctrine in Kisling v. Thierman, 214 Iowa 911 , 243 N.W. 552 , and as to the common law specifications in (a), on legal excuse under the emergency doctrine.

1978Bletzer v. Wilson, 224 Iowa 884 , 276 N.W. 836 .

1978Bletzer v. Wilson, 224 Iowa 884 , 276 N.W. 836 .

1974Pinckney v. Watkinson, 254 Iowa 144 , 116 N.W.2d 258 ; Vreugdenhil v. Kunkel, 256 Iowa 460 , 127 N.W.2d 630 ; Leinen v. Boettger, 241 Iowa 910 , 44 N. W.2d 73 .

1974Pinckney v. Watkinson, 254 Iowa 144 , 116 N.W.2d 258 ; Vreugdenhil v. Kunkel, 256 Iowa 460 , 127 N.W.2d 630 ; Leinen v. Boettger, 241 Iowa 910 , 44 N. W.2d 73 .

1974Pinckney v. Watkinson, 254 Iowa 144 , 116 N.W.2d 258 ; Vreugdenhil v. Kunkel, 256 Iowa 460 , 127 N.W.2d 630 ; Leinen v. Boettger, 241 Iowa 910 , 44 N. W.2d 73 .

1974Pinckney v. Watkinson, 254 Iowa 144 , 116 N.W.2d 258 ; Vreugdenhil v. Kunkel, 256 Iowa 460 , 127 N.W.2d 630 ; Leinen v. Boettger, 241 Iowa 910 , 44 N. W.2d 73 .

1974Pinckney v. Watkinson, 254 Iowa 144 , 116 N.W.2d 258 ; Vreugdenhil v. Kunkel, 256 Iowa 460 , 127 N.W.2d 630 ; Leinen v. Boettger, 241 Iowa 910 , 44 N. W.2d 73 .

1974Pinckney v. Watkinson, 254 Iowa 144 , 116 N.W.2d 258 ; Vreugdenhil v. Kunkel, 256 Iowa 460 , 127 N.W.2d 630 ; Leinen v. Boettger, 241 Iowa 910 , 44 N. W.2d 73 .

1964Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, section 195, it is said: “As a rule, motorists approaching an intersection in the face of a green traffic light may proceed, although when they are approaching from some distance away they are required to anticipate that the signal will change, and under certain circumstances may be under the affirmative duty of reducing their speed.” See also section 360; Luther v. Jones, 220 Iowa 95 , 261 N.W. 817 ; Glover v. Vernon, 226 Iowa 1089 , 285 N.W. 652 . *606 In Harris v. Clark, 251 Iowa 807, 815 , 103 N.W.2d 215, 220 , we said: “In the eases denying the ben

1964Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, section 195, it is said: “As a rule, motorists approaching an intersection in the face of a green traffic light may proceed, although when they are approaching from some distance away they are required to anticipate that the signal will change, and under certain circumstances may be under the affirmative duty of reducing their speed.” See also section 360; Luther v. Jones, 220 Iowa 95 , 261 N.W. 817 ; Glover v. Vernon, 226 Iowa 1089 , 285 N.W. 652 . *606 In Harris v. Clark, 251 Iowa 807, 815 , 103 N.W.2d 215, 220 , we said: “In the eases denying the ben

1964Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, section 195, it is said: “As a rule, motorists approaching an intersection in the face of a green traffic light may proceed, although when they are approaching from some distance away they are required to anticipate that the signal will change, and under certain circumstances may be under the affirmative duty of reducing their speed.” See also section 360; Luther v. Jones, 220 Iowa 95 , 261 N.W. 817 ; Glover v. Vernon, 226 Iowa 1089 , 285 N.W. 652 . *606 In Harris v. Clark, 251 Iowa 807, 815 , 103 N.W.2d 215, 220 , we said: “In the eases denying the ben

1964Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, section 195, it is said: “As a rule, motorists approaching an intersection in the face of a green traffic light may proceed, although when they are approaching from some distance away they are required to anticipate that the signal will change, and under certain circumstances may be under the affirmative duty of reducing their speed.” See also section 360; Luther v. Jones, 220 Iowa 95 , 261 N.W. 817 ; Glover v. Vernon, 226 Iowa 1089 , 285 N.W. 652 . *606 In Harris v. Clark, 251 Iowa 807, 815 , 103 N.W.2d 215, 220 , we said: “In the eases denying the ben

1963Co., 273 Wis. 422 , 78 N.W.2d 744 , holds the emergency rule was erroneously applied where drivers were approaching each other *8 partly in the other’s traffic lane, on opposite sides of a hill which obscured their view.

1963Co., 273 Wis. 422 , 78 N.W.2d 744 , holds the emergency rule was erroneously applied where drivers were approaching each other *8 partly in the other’s traffic lane, on opposite sides of a hill which obscured their view.

1963He is not permitted to create an emergency by his own negligence, as by operating the vehicle ® * * on the wrong side of the highway, and then derive a benefit from such situation.” Raddant v. Tamminen, 266 Wis. 49, 51 , 62 N.W.2d 428, 429 , is a case much like this where the car immediately ahead of defendant’s “pulled out to pass the ear ahead of it.

1963He is not permitted to create an emergency by his own negligence, as by operating the vehicle ® * * on the wrong side of the highway, and then derive a benefit from such situation.” Raddant v. Tamminen, 266 Wis. 49, 51 , 62 N.W.2d 428, 429 , is a case much like this where the car immediately ahead of defendant’s “pulled out to pass the ear ahead of it.

1963Andraski v. Gormley, 3 Wis.2d 149 , 87 N.W.2d 818, 820 , holds a party was improperly given the benefit of the doctrine of sudden emergency where it existed because of his failure to keep a proper lookout.

1963Andraski v. Gormley, 3 Wis.2d 149 , 87 N.W.2d 818, 820 , holds a party was improperly given the benefit of the doctrine of sudden emergency where it existed because of his failure to keep a proper lookout.

1962Murray v. Lang, 252 Iowa 260 , 106 N.W.2d 643 ; Harris v. Clark, 251 Iowa 807 , 103 N.W.2d 215 ; Menke v. Peterschmidt, 246 Iowa. 722, 69 N.W.2d 65 ; Koob v. Schmolt, 241 Iowa 1294 , 45 N.W.2d 216 .

1962Murray v. Lang, 252 Iowa 260 , 106 N.W.2d 643 ; Harris v. Clark, 251 Iowa 807 , 103 N.W.2d 215 ; Menke v. Peterschmidt, 246 Iowa. 722, 69 N.W.2d 65 ; Koob v. Schmolt, 241 Iowa 1294 , 45 N.W.2d 216 .

1962Murray v. Lang, 252 Iowa 260 , 106 N.W.2d 643 ; Harris v. Clark, 251 Iowa 807 , 103 N.W.2d 215 ; Menke v. Peterschmidt, 246 Iowa. 722, 69 N.W.2d 65 ; Koob v. Schmolt, 241 Iowa 1294 , 45 N.W.2d 216 .

1962Murray v. Lang, 252 Iowa 260 , 106 N.W.2d 643 ; Harris v. Clark, 251 Iowa 807 , 103 N.W.2d 215 ; Menke v. Peterschmidt, 246 Iowa. 722, 69 N.W.2d 65 ; Koob v. Schmolt, 241 Iowa 1294 , 45 N.W.2d 216 .

1962Murray v. Lang, 252 Iowa 260 , 106 N.W.2d 643 ; Harris v. Clark, 251 Iowa 807 , 103 N.W.2d 215 ; Menke v. Peterschmidt, 246 Iowa. 722, 69 N.W.2d 65 ; Koob v. Schmolt, 241 Iowa 1294 , 45 N.W.2d 216 .

1960The facts resemble those in Zuck v. Larson, supra. In Wiley v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 3 Wis.2d 320 , 88 N.W.2d 366, 369 , the evidence showed plaintiff did not see the other automobile until it was directly in front of him and four or five feet away when in fact it was in plain sight for at least 90 feet and could have been seen by plaintiff if he had maintained a proper lookout.' Plaintiff was deniéd the benefit of the emergency doctrine. *815 In Kachman v. Blosberg, 251 Minn. 224, 235 , 87 N.W.2d 687, 696 , is this statement: “It seems obvious to us that the defendant brought o

1960The facts resemble those in Zuck v. Larson, supra. In Wiley v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 3 Wis.2d 320 , 88 N.W.2d 366, 369 , the evidence showed plaintiff did not see the other automobile until it was directly in front of him and four or five feet away when in fact it was in plain sight for at least 90 feet and could have been seen by plaintiff if he had maintained a proper lookout.' Plaintiff was deniéd the benefit of the emergency doctrine. *815 In Kachman v. Blosberg, 251 Minn. 224, 235 , 87 N.W.2d 687, 696 , is this statement: “It seems obvious to us that the defendant brought o

1960The facts resemble those in Zuck v. Larson, supra. In Wiley v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 3 Wis.2d 320 , 88 N.W.2d 366, 369 , the evidence showed plaintiff did not see the other automobile until it was directly in front of him and four or five feet away when in fact it was in plain sight for at least 90 feet and could have been seen by plaintiff if he had maintained a proper lookout.' Plaintiff was deniéd the benefit of the emergency doctrine. *815 In Kachman v. Blosberg, 251 Minn. 224, 235 , 87 N.W.2d 687, 696 , is this statement: “It seems obvious to us that the defendant brought o

1960The facts resemble those in Zuck v. Larson, supra. In Wiley v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 3 Wis.2d 320 , 88 N.W.2d 366, 369 , the evidence showed plaintiff did not see the other automobile until it was directly in front of him and four or five feet away when in fact it was in plain sight for at least 90 feet and could have been seen by plaintiff if he had maintained a proper lookout.' Plaintiff was deniéd the benefit of the emergency doctrine. *815 In Kachman v. Blosberg, 251 Minn. 224, 235 , 87 N.W.2d 687, 696 , is this statement: “It seems obvious to us that the defendant brought o

1960The facts resemble those in Zuck v. Larson, supra. In Wiley v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 3 Wis.2d 320 , 88 N.W.2d 366, 369 , the evidence showed plaintiff did not see the other automobile until it was directly in front of him and four or five feet away when in fact it was in plain sight for at least 90 feet and could have been seen by plaintiff if he had maintained a proper lookout.' Plaintiff was deniéd the benefit of the emergency doctrine. *815 In Kachman v. Blosberg, 251 Minn. 224, 235 , 87 N.W.2d 687, 696 , is this statement: “It seems obvious to us that the defendant brought o