Farole v. Eichman

California Supreme Court Oct 31, 1952 No. L. A. 22372Published

Before: Gibson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A plaintiff's violation of a safety ordinance does not bar recovery unless that violation is a proximately contributing cause of the injury, which is a question of fact for the jury.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff's violation of a bicycle ordinance constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Whether the lack of lights on a bicycle in a well-lit intersection constitutes a proximate cause of an accident.
Whether a trial court's oral comments regarding the comparison of negligence for proximate cause determination constitute reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It must appear, in addition, that violation of the ordinance was a proximately contributing cause of the injury.”

“Whether the violation constitutes such contributing cause is ordinarily a question of fact and becomes a question of law only when it appears that but one inference can reasonably be drawn from the evidence.”

“The jury was entitled to conclude, as it did, that the lack of lights on the bicycle did not constitute a proximate cause of the accident.”

GIBSON, C. J.

A bicycle upon which plaintiff was riding with another boy was struck by a truck owned by defendant corporation and driven by defendant Eichman. A jury awarded plaintiff damages for the injuries which he received, and defendants have appealed from the judgment rendered against them.

On the day of the accident plaintiff, who was 14 years old, and his friend, Louis, 15, were together at the intersection of Broadway and Junípero in the city of Long Beach. The two boys spent some time in a drugstore on the northeast corner of the intersection and then left there intending to cross Broadway to another shop which was located on the southeast corner. Louis, who had his bicycle with him, got on its seat in order to ride it across the street, and plaintiff sat on the handlebars, facing frontwards, with his feet hanging down. It was 7 :40 p.m. on a September evening, the weather was clear and dry, the street lights were on, and the intersection was well illuminated. Louis waited for a westbound ear to pass, pedalled the bicycle into the pedestrian crosswalk, and moved across Broadway at a speed of 3 miles per hour, with plaintiff riding on the handlebars. At a point in the crosswalk about 5 feet south of the center line of Broadway, the bicycle was struck on the right rear side by an eastbound truck driven by defendant Eichman. The truck approached the intersection at a speed of approximately 50 miles per hour, and the driver gave no warning and did not apply his brakes until

[824]

he was well into the intersection. At the point of collision the truck was travelling about 30 miles per hour. Plaintiff did not see the truck at any time before it struck the bicycle. Louis was injured and plaintiff suffered a broken right arm and numerous abrasions along his right side, hip and leg.

There is ample evidence to support the implied finding that the driver of the truck was negligent, but defendants contend that the record shows, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. At the time of the accident a city ordinance forbade persons from riding a bicycle other than on its regular seat or seats, and defendants argue that plaintiff’s act of riding the handlebars in violation of the ordinance constituted negligence

per se

Farole v. Eichman

AI Brief

GIBSON, C. J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief