Reeves v. Lapinta

McCOMB, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants predicated upon the granting of defendants’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury (sec. 629, Code Civ. Proc.) in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover damages for personal injuries.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to plaintiff, as we must in reviewing a judgment predicated upon the granting of defendants’ motion for a judgment

non obstante veredicto (Myers

v.

Southern Pac. Co.,

14 Cal. App. (2d) 287, 292 [58 Pac. (2d) 387]), the material facts are these:

On January 30, 1937, plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile bus owned and operated by defendants, which was traveling in a westerly direction on Biberón Street in the San Pedro district of the city of Los Angeles. As the bus approached the intersection at Biberón and Cabrillo Streets, plaintiff arose from her seat, walked to the front of the bus and stood on the step of the bus as it traveled along the street, the exit door being open at the time. The bus gave a sudden jerk and plaintiff was thrown to the street and injured.

These are the questions presented for determination:

First: Was plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law in riding upon the step of the automobile bus?

Second: Was the issue of plaintiff’s contributory negligence one which should properly have been left to the determination of the trial jury?

The first question must be answered in the affirmative. The law is settled that (1) the violation of a statute or ordinance constitutes negligence

per se,

and (2) it constitutes contributory negligence if the failure to comply with the statute or ordinance contributes directly to the plaintiff’s injury.

(Hurtel

v.

Albert Cohn, Inc.,

5 Cal. (2d) 145, 147 [52 Pac. (2d) 922];

Leek

v.

Western Union Tel. Co.,