Driving with Obscured Vision
With technology continuously evolving at a rapid pace, issues of negligence as it pertains to motor vehicles will increasingly shift toward distractions provided by mobile communications devices such as mobile phones and laptop computers. These types of devices lead to what is known as “distracted driving” and are an increasing catalyst for automobile accidents and ensuing lawsuits. Despite these technological advances, however, there are some more basic forms of negligence that still occur commonly enough to warrant discussion. One such form is that of driving with obscured vision, something drivers may do without even realizing that it is negligent but that can easily lead to an accident and a personal injury lawsuit in Tennessee.
Driving with obscured vision can take many forms. The most blatant example would be someone who drives while completely blind. Tennessee has held that driving in such a condition automatically constitutes negligence, which will make the party-at-fault liable for damages caused as a result of driving in such a condition. Note that this does not apply to only physical blindness. Driving while blindfolded or driving with your eyes closed would also fall under the category of negligence per se if such acts result in the driver’s total blindness. These actions would also have the added effect of making the driver the object of ridicule on a national, if not global, scale, which should also serve as an added deterrent.
Vision can be partially obscured in many ways, such as by objects in the car, decorations on the outside of the car, or fog or frost on the windshield. Where the driver has obscured vision, but is not totally blind, whether or not driving with obstructed vision constitutes negligence is dependent on the circumstances. Where vision is partially obscured and may have been the cause of an accident, the jury will be asked to decide how badly the driver’s vision was obscured, whether a reasonable person would have attempted to drive under such a handicap, and whether the obscurity of vision was one of the proximate causes of the collision. If the jury determines that vision was at least partially obscured and that a reasonable person would not have attempted to drive given the circumstances, the driver whose vision is in question may be held liable for damages resulting from the accident as a result of the driver’s negligence. Drivers should thus endeavor to remove any and all possible visual impediments before traveling on the roadways.
Source: Davis v. Wilson, 522 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974).
