Renzetti v. Los Angeles Motor Coach Co.

California Court of Appeal Nov 26, 1941 No. Civ. 13222Published

Before: Wood (W. J.)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's findings that the defendants were not negligent and that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the collision by a third-party driver were supported by the evidence. The defendants successfully rebutted the inference of negligence raised by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the defendants were not negligent.
Whether the defendants successfully rebutted the inference of negligence arising under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Whether the trial court correctly identified the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“They discharged their obligation when they rebutted the inference of negligence which arose from plaintiff’s proof of the circumstances of the accident.”

WOOD (W. J.), J.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries which she suffered in attempting to board defendants’ bus. The action was tried before

[39]

the court sitting without a jury, resulting in a judgment for defendants, from which plaintiff appeals.

Defendants’ motor bus was being operated on September 4, 1939, along Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles. It stopped at the corner of Cahuenga Boulevard for the purpose of discharging and receiving passengers. The bus was brought to a complete stop, the driver keeping pressure upon the brake to prevent the bus from rolling. The driver then opened the entrance door. Plaintiff stepped from the curb to the bus and as she placed a foot on the first step to enter, the bus suddenly gave a “jerk” causing plaintiff to fall from the bus. The “jerk” was caused by the impact of an automobile driven by one Ray Douglas upon the rear end of the bus. The automobile had almost come to a stop when, after the bus had stopped, Douglas’ foot slipped from the brake and onto the accelerator, causing his automobile to strike against the bus and to move it forward “a couple of feet.”

Both parties concede that under the doctrine of

res ipsa loquitur

proof on the part of plaintiff of the happening of the accident and the surrounding circumstances raised the inference of negligence on the part of defendants. The evidence which gave rise to the inference did not, however, shift the burden of proof from plaintiff to defendants. It became necessary for defendants to present evidence only to rebut the effect of the inference. It was the function of the trial court to weigh all the evidence and to determine therefrom whether the inference of negligence had been rebutted and whether plaintiff had sustained the burden of proving the negligence of defendants by a preponderance of all the evidence. It was also the function of the trial court to determine the. question of the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

(Lacy

Pacific Gas & Electric Co.,

Renzetti v. Los Angeles Motor Coach Co.

AI Brief

WOOD (W. J.), J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief