• 1986 - Operation of Motor Vehicle (General Care Required)
  • C-3.01
    • Highways And Roadways
    • Motor Vehicles
    • Reckless Driving
    • Speed
    • Tort Liability
    • Tort Liability
  • Every person must exercise ordinary care in the operation of a motor vehicle and, while exercising that care, drive it at such speed and in such manner as to be able to avoid colliding with other persons and objects upon the roadway. The care required must be measured by reference to the surrounding circumstances and the risks or dangers known to the driver at the time of the act in question or that would have been known to a driver who had exercised ordinary care.

     

    While driving a vehicle upon a highway, a driver must not only see what is in plain sight, but also any object within the ordinary range of vision that would have been seen by a person of ordinary prudence while exercising ordinary care under similar circumstances.

     

    [A driver must anticipate the presence of large objects, such as other motor vehicles easily seen and on the open road, regardless of whether they are lighted or unlighted, carefully or negligently driven or parked, and guard against collision with them.]

     

    While every driver of a motor vehicle must be alert and keep a lookout for other vehicles, obstructions, and other obvious dangers, the driver has the right to assume, in the absence of an awareness to the contrary, that others using the highway will exercise ordinary care to avoid injury, and the driver is not negligent in acting on that assumption. Of course, a driver of a motor vehicle has no right to assume that the driver's course of travel is free of other vehicles, obstructions, or dangers at times when the required range of vision is impaired.

     

    If a person drives recklessly and carelessly and without regard to apparent or possible dangers to oneself and others, and injury proximately results, the driver is responsible for that conduct, even if the driver did not violate any specific highway traffic regulation.

    • 12.1-01-03(1)
    • 12.1-01-03(2)
    • Bratvold v. Lalum, 282 NW 514 (ND 1938)
    • Doll v. Treiber, 76 NW2d 910 (ND 1956)
    • Haider v. Finken, 239 NW2d 508 (ND 1976)
    • King v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 107 NW2d 509 (ND 1961)
    • Schaller v. Bjornstad, 40 NW2d 59 (ND 1949)
    • Simon v. Woodland, 179 NW2d 422 (ND 1970)
    • State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, 575 NW2d 658
    • State v. Thiel, 411 NW2d 66 (ND 1987)
  • Notes: (2002 - reviewed with no changes)