Swingle v. Hoffman

California Court of Appeal Apr 2, 1958 No. Civ. 5605; Civ. 5606Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the question of whether a driver was negligent for failing to see another vehicle at an intersection is a question of fact for the jury, not negligence as a matter of law. Additionally, the court held that a trial court may refuse a requested instruction if it is a 'formula' instruction that omits essential elements like proximate cause and the subject matter is otherwise covered by complete instructions.

Issues

Whether a driver is negligent as a matter of law for failing to see another vehicle at an intersection where views are obstructed.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing a requested jury instruction regarding the status of a passenger and contributory negligence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The authorities are legion to the effect that a so-called ‘formula’ instruction must contain all the elements essential to a recovery, and the absence of any one of such elements may not be compensated for nor cured by a reference thereto”

MUSSELL, J.

These actions arose out of an automobile collision in the intersection of Seventeenth and K Streets in the city of Bakersfield. K Street runs north and south and Seventeenth Street runs east and west. At the time of the accident Betty Ruth Hoffman, formerly Betty Ruth Simpson, accompanied by her daughter, Diane Louise, aged 13, and by Leona Johnson, also aged 13, was driving a 1947 Plymouth coupé southerly on K Street. Claude Arthur Mitchell, accompanied by his wife, his adult daughter, Louise Swingle, and a Mr. Pagan, was driving a Buick automobile easterly on Seventeenth Street. The two vehicles collided in the southwest quadrant of the intersection.

On July 22, 1955, a complaint for damages was filed in the municipal court in Bakersfield by Betty Ruth Simpson, individually, and as guardian ad litem of Diane Louise Simpson, and Margaret Johnson, individually, and as guardian ad litem of Kathleen Leona Johnson, against Claude Arthur Mitchell and Helen Louise Mitchell. In this action the Mitchells answered and cross-complained. The matter was then transferred to the superior court and the complaint was filed therein on August 31, 1955. It was amended to increase the prayer for general damages and to show that Betty

[106]

Ruth Simpson had married and that her name was then Betty Ruth Hoffman.

On August 29, 1955, Louise Swingle filed in the Superior Court of Kern County an action for damages for personal injuries against Betty Ruth Hoffman arising out of the accident here involved. These two actions were consolidated for trial and a jury returned verdicts in the action filed by Betty Ruth Simpson in her favor in the sum of $3,072.64, in her favor as guardian of Diane Louise Simpson for $1,500, in favor of Margaret Johnson in the sum of $108.89, and in favor of Margaret Johnson, guardian ad litem of Kathleen Leona Johnson, for the sum of $1,500. The jury further found against the cross-complainants Claude A. Mitchell and his wife and in favor of the cross-defendant Betty Ruth Hoffman (formerly Simpson). At the same time the jury returned a verdict in the companion action in favor of Betty Ruth Hoffman and against plaintiff Louise Swingle. Claude A. Mitchell and Helen Mitchell appeal from the judgment in favor of plaintiff and cross-defendant Betty Ruth Hoffman and against the said defendants and cross-complainants Claude A. Mitchell and Helen Mitchell. Louise Swingle appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Betty Ruth Hoffman and against plaintiff Louise Swingle.

Swingle v. Hoffman

AI Brief

MUSSELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief