Jennings v. Arata

California Court of Appeal Jan 6, 1948 No. Civ. 13445Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on left-turn signals, in allowing the plaintiff to request instructions during the trial, or in admitting testimony regarding the defendant's prior driving conduct. The court affirmed that the determination of whether evidence is too remote to be admissible rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in giving a jury instruction regarding left-turn signals.
Whether the trial court erred in permitting counsel to request jury instructions after the hearing had commenced.
Whether the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's driving conduct a half-mile from the accident scene constituted prejudicial error due to remoteness.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Any change of direction in front of vehicles approaching in the left lane must be construed as a “left turn” requiring proper signals”

“the question of the remoteness of testimony is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.”

“We are unable to say as a matter of law that there was such a palpable remoteness between the incident testified to and the accident as to require a declaration that the trial judge abused his discretion.”

NOURSE, P. J.

This appeal is taken from a judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff awarding damages for injuries sustained in a collision between plaintiff’s motorcycle and defendant’s automobile.

The accident occurred at the junction between Peabody Road and Highway 4 at a point where the highway and Peabody Road are mutually an extension of each other in a straight line, and Highway 4 curves slowly in a northwesterly direction away from Peabody Road.

The defendant was proceeding westerly along the straight portion of Highway 4 toward Peabody Road while the plaintiff was approaching from the opposite direction around the curved part of Highway 4 opposite Peabody Road. There is no question of obstructed visibility of either party.

As the defendant attempted to leave Highway 4 and enter Peabody Road the collision occurred. There was a sharp conflict of evidence as to the point of impact, i. e., whether the defendant had entered the curved portion of the highway or had proceeded in a perfectly straight line.

During the trial the plaintiff was allowed, over objection, to introduce the testimony of Mr. Barnes of the Highway Maintenance Division who with his crew was working on the road some half mile from the scene of the accident and separated therefrom by an intervening hill. This testimony was to the effect that the defendant at the time he passed the

[145]

highway crew ignored the 25 mile an hour sign there posted and almost struck the workmen.

It further appears that during the giving of instructions to the jury the plaintiff’s attorney approached the bench and indicated to the trial judge section 550, subsection (c) of the Vehicle Code governing left-turn signals, and then and there requested that the same be included in the jury instructions. The court assented and read the entire section as an instruction.

There are only three assignments of error: that the admission of the testimony of Mr. Barnes was prejudicial error; that the court erred in permitting counsel for the plaintiff to offer additional instructions after the hearing; and that the giving of an instruction on left turns was, in any event, erroneous.

Jennings v. Arata

AI Brief

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief