[1JB]

I believe your analysis of the "Boulevard Rule" may be incorrect. The rule simply states that: "a driver approaching an intersection from an unfavored road must yield the right-of-way to drivers on the "through highway" already in or approaching the intersection." If the driver does not stop and look before entering then they are contributoryily negligent under the boulevard rule and cannot recover. If the driver does stop and look and there is still an accident then it becomes a question for the jury as to whether the non-favored driver was contributoryily negligent because of poor judgement. Whether the judgement of the non-favored driver was poor will also allow the jury to evaluate the behavior of the favored driver. If the favored driver was negligent then the non-favored driver can recover. In short, if you stop at the intersection of a highway, and look both ways and judge it to be safe to enter or cross or see no cars or judge it to be safe to enter as you enter a highway from an on ramp and the favored driver is exceeding the speed limit then the jury can find the favored driver negligent. Anyone who thinks they can barrel down, while speeding on drivers as they enter an on ramp and face no liability for an ensuing accident is sorely mistaken.

To quote from one case: "From the host of cases this Court has reviewed in the last century, we encapsulate the following rule: the mere occurrence of an accident in a protected intersection will not of itself establish negligence against the unfavored driver. Whether one looked and failed to see a vehicle within the zone of danger is a jury question, except in those rare instances when the evidence is so definite that reasonable minds could not differ. Before a court may declare contributory negligence more than slight as a matter of law, the location of the oncoming vehicle must have been in an obviously favored position within the radius of danger; otherwise, the question is one for the jury."