Turkovich v. Rowland

California Court of Appeal Sep 4, 1951 No. Civ. 18259Published

Before: Drapeau

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the jury's verdict in favor of the defendants was supported by the evidence, as the determination of proximate cause and negligence in a rear-end collision is a question of fact for the jury. The court further held that the jury instructions provided were proper and not prejudicial to the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the jury's finding that the defendant driver was not negligent and that the driver of the lead vehicle was the proximate cause of the accident.
Whether the trial court erred in giving or refusing specific jury instructions regarding negligence, signals, and unavoidable accident.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The jury was fully and fairly instructed upon all of the issues in the case. There was no error in giving or refusing any particular instruction.”

DRAPEAU, J.

Plaintiff, Anna Turkovieh, was riding with two other persons in the single seat of a coupé. She was in the middle of the seat between a lady driver, Olga Petrovich,

[447]

and a gentleman on her right. The coupé was going easterly along Culver Boulevard to its intersection with Main Street in Culver City, in Los Angeles County. It was about 7:30 p. m., and dark at the time.

About 25 to 30 feet west of the pedestrian crossing at the intersection, the driver of the coupé made a sudden stop, and defendant’s car following ran into it.

The driver of that car, one of defendants, testified that he had been driving about 18 to 20 feet behind the coupé for a city block; that he was going 20 to 25 miles an hour; that he saw no arm signal given; that he applied his brakes when he saw the stoplight on the coupé light up; but that the coupé stopped so quickly that he was unable to check the momentum of his vehicle in time to avoid the collision.

After the accident this witness went forward opposite the driver’s window of the coupé, and found the door locked and the glass window rolled up. Plaintiff makes no contention that an arm signal was given.

Plaintiff was thrown forward to the front of the coupé and then backward against the cushion on the back of the seat. She was taken to the Santa Monica hospital in an ambulance, examined there by an intern, and discharged as ‘ ambulatory. ’ ’ She went home and went to bed and next morning called her doctor. He pronounced her injury a mild form of concussion, gave her sedative medicine, and told her to stay in bed.

About a week later plaintiff caught her hand in the wringer of a washing machine. The injuries thus suffered were painful and severe, and required treatment for several weeks, and a number of calls to her doctor’s office.

Plaintiff testified that she lost consciousness just before she caught her hand in the wringer, and her doctor testified that such loss of consciousness could have been from the injuries received in the accident.

The case was tried by a jury, whose verdict was for defendants. Prom the judgment which followed, plaintiff appeals.

Turkovich v. Rowland

AI Brief

DRAPEAU, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief