Finney v. Wierman

California Court of Appeal May 26, 1942 No. Civ. 13430Published

Before: Schauer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial because the jury instructions, which declared the respondent negligent as a matter of law for violating traffic statutes, failed to account for circumstances where such actions were taken to avoid sudden peril.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial due to prejudicial errors in jury instructions regarding statutory traffic violations.
Whether unqualified instructions on statutory traffic violations constitute prejudicial error when they fail to account for the sudden peril doctrine.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fact that such instruction was appropriate to theory of the case does not justify its being given in unqualified and all-inclusive form.”

“The operator of a ear obviously is not guilty of negligence as a matter of law merely because he drives the car into another lane or onto the left side of the highway”

“The trial court is to be commended for recognizing and promptly rectifying, as it did, the error into which it had been led by the instructions proposed to it.”

SCHAUER, P. J.

On February 16, 1939, between 8 and 6:30 p. m. (after sundown), Ora Finney was the operator and sole occupant of an automobile traveling south on San Antonio Boulevard near the town of Norwalk. At the same time and place, in the opposite direction, Frances L. Wierman was driving a car owned by herself and her husband Clyde G. Wierman, in which car their infant daughter and the parents of Clyde were passengers. These two consolidated actions are the outgrowth of a head-on between the two automobiles.

The jury returned verdicts denying Ora Finney any on her complaint and awarding damages against her in favor of each of the passengers in the Wierman car but denying recovery to the driver, Frances Wierman, and to her husband Clyde. As between Ora Finney on one side and Frances and Clyde Wierman on the other, the verdict

[284]

which was returned and filed reads in material part as follows: “We the jury in the above entitled action, find for the defendants, Frances L. Wierman and Clyde G. Wierman, against the plaintiff, Ora J. Finney, and in favor of the cross-defendant, Ora J. Finney, against the cross-complainants, Frances L. Wierman and Clyde G. Wierman. Contributory Negligence. No recovery.”

From the order in each case granting the motion of the party Finney for a new trial, these appeals are taken. On behalf of the appellants (Wiermans) it is asserted that upon the record before us the only ground which can be considered as a basis for the orders is that of errors in law occurring at the trial to the prejudice of the respondent Finney. This assertion is not disputed by respondent and consequently we make no further inquiry concerning it. From that basis appellants contend that no substantial or prejudicial error in law occurred at the trial and that consequently the court erred in each case in granting a new trial. The orders appealed from must be affirmed.

San Antonio Boulevard, in the locale concerned, was a white-lined three-lane highway, traffic over which was governed by section 526 of the Vehicle Code, which requires that: “ (a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical [practicable] entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.

Finney v. Wierman

AI Brief

SCHAUER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief