Same case, 377 NE 2d 613 (1978). The Indiana Supreme Court vacated the decision from the Court of Appeals and the trial court decision for the defendant was affirmed. From the Supreme Court's opinion: "The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court for its refusal to give the Thorntons' tendered final instruction number five:
"'It is the duty of a driver of a motor vehicle on approaching a street or private driveway intersection to use reasonable care to discover whether or not there is any bicycle approaching or entering such intersection. Even though the highway upon which the driver of the motor vehicle is traveling be a preferential one, it is still the duty to use due care to avoid coming into a collision with said bicycle.'
"Under Indiana law, as the Court of Appeals correctly observed, a driver has a duty to maintain a lookout while operating a vehicle. ... Whether a driver complied with the standard of ordinary care to keep a lookout under the facts of the case is a question for the jury. ...
"A proper lookout has been defined to mean the duty to see that which is clearly visible or which in the exercise of due care would be visible. ... The Thorntons' tendered instruction number five, however, does not refer to a driver's duty to maintain a lookout. It states that a driver has a duty to use care to discover bicycles about to enter a preferential highway from a private drive. The clear implication of the Thorntons' proposed duty to discover vehicles entering or about to enter a preferential highway goes well beyond the established duty to see that which is clearly visible. To 'discover' implies a seeking out of that which is not clearly visible.
"Matt Thornton testified that he stopped his bicycle at the end of the driveway prior to proceeding onto the road. The evidence established that large bushes obstructed the view of the driveway from the road except for the last several feet. Pender testified that he did not see the plaintiffs stopped at the edge of the road, but saw them only after they were already on the road, just prior to the collision. Whether the children actually stopped at the end of the driveway, where they would have been within the defendant's view if he had been maintaining a lookout, or whether they rode from behind the bushes and onto the road without first stopping, was a question of fact to be determined by the jury. ...
"If the plaintiffs failed to stop at the end of the driveway where they could have been seen by the defendant, the defendant could not have been negligent by failing to see them. ..."
Disclaimer