Schultheiss v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

California Court of Appeal Jan 30, 1936 No. Civ. 9034Published

Before: White

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a municipal ordinance prohibiting boarding a moving street car was properly admitted into evidence to establish a standard of conduct, and that the city had the constitutional authority to enact such police regulations.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a city ordinance prohibiting the boarding of a moving street car.
Whether the city of Los Angeles had the constitutional authority to regulate the manner in which passengers board street cars.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“But the ordinance enacted an absolute standard of conduct and removed from the jury the right to speculate as to what that ideal composite the man of ordinary prudence might or might not have done under similar circumstances.”

“In view of the uncontradicted testimony that the street car was in motion at the time plaintiff attempted to board it, the ordinance was clearly admissible to show that by its violation plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.”

WHITE, J.,

pro

tem.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendant made and entered on the verdict of a jury after trial, in which proceeding plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him through the alleged negligence of defendant in the management and operation of a street car which plaintiff was attempting to board near the intersection of Sixth and Spring-Streets in the city of Los Angeles.

The complaint alleged that plaintiff was invited by defendant to board one of its street ears, and that while he was on the steps of the street car defendant negligently, recklessly, and without warning jerked and speeded up the street car, throwing plaintiff to the ground and injuring him.

Issue was joined through defendant’s answer, which denied any negligence and pleaded contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, and that he allegedly was negligent and careless in his attempt to board a moving street car.

Appellant assails the judgment on the single ground that the court erred in admitting into evidence over plaintiff’s objection sections Nos. 36 and 37 of ordinance No. 50515 of the city of Los Angeles, reading as follows :

“Sec. 36. Boarding Street Cars. It shall be unlawful for any person to board or alight from a street car or vehicle while said street ear or vehicle is in motion.

“Sec. 37. Riding on Car Steps. It shall be unlawful for any person to ride upon the fender or running'board of any street ear or vehicle.”

[527]

With appellant’s claim of error through the admission into evidence of said sections of the city ordinance we cannot agree. The rule in this state is clearly set forth in the case of

Lorry

Englander Drayage etc. Co.,

108 Cal. App. 116, 118 [291 Pac. 467], where the court said:

Schultheiss v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

AI Brief

WHITE, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief