People v. Ortiz

86 Cal.App.2d Supp. 937 (1948) THE PEOPLE, Appellant,

v.

ALFONSO TORRES ORTIZ, Respondent.

California Court of Appeals.

June 17, 1948. Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney, Donald M. Redwine, Assistant City Attorney, and John L. Bland, Deputy City Attorney, for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

BISHOP, J.

We are called upon in this appeal to answer this decisive question: When the crosswalk is located in the middle of the block, is it a misdemeanor for a driver of a motor vehicle to fail to yield the right of way to a pedestrian who is crossing the roadway in it? The trial court, believing that a negative answer should be given, dismissed the action before trial, for the only charge made against the defendant was one embraced within the question. The People appealed from the order of dismissal and advisedly, we have concluded, for we are of the opinion that the question should be answered in the affirmative.

[1] As we interpret the first subdivision of section 560, Vehicle Code, it requires a motorist to yield the right of way to a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk no matter where the crosswalk is located. That is to say, we hold that the words "at an intersection" modify the words "within any unmarked crosswalk" and not the more remote words "within any marked crosswalk," as they are used in the subdivision, which reads:

"(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. ..."

[2] Sufficient reason for our decision would be at hand were we content to rely upon the rule thus stated in a case cited by the People, that of City of Santa Barbara v. Maher (1938), 25 Cal.App.2d 325, 327 [77 P.2d 306]:

"It is a settled rule of statutory construction that relative or modifying phrases are to be applied to the words immediately preceding them and are not to be construed as extending to more remote phrases. (Citing cases.)"

"The rule is thus accurately stated in 59 Corpus Juris, 985: 'By what is known as the doctrine of the "last antecedent", relative and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses [86 Cal.App.2d Supp. 939] are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote.' "