McDevitt v. Rogers

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of defendant Julia R. Rogers, after trial before a jury, in an action to recover damages which resulted from injuries received in an automobile accident, plaintiff appeals.

A motion for a nonsuit in favor of defendant William M. Rogers was granted and no appeal has been taken therefrom.

The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to defendant Julia R. Rogers (respondent), hereinafter referred to as defendant, the essential facts are:

[308]

On December 31, 1940, at about 4 p.m. defendant was driving an automobile in an easterly direction on Garvey Road just west of where the highway intersects with Azusa Avenue, a street which runs in a northerly and southerly direction. At this point Garvey Road, which is a state highway, runs in an easterly and westerly direction. When approximately 150 feet west of the intersection, and while proceeding at a speed of about twenty miles per hour, defendant observed an automobile, owned and operated by Mr. Bloeser, in which plaintiff was riding as a guest, being driven in a westerly direction on the highway at about forty-five miles per hour. At this time the car in which plaintiff was riding was approximately 400 feet east of the intersection. Defendant gave the proper signal for a left turn and proceeded to turn north on Azusa Avenue. While defendant’s automobile was in the northerly lane of Garvey Road at the intersection, the car in which plaintiff was riding collided with defendant’s automobile, as a result of which plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries.

Plaintiff relies for reversal of the judgment on two propositions which will be stated and answered hereunder seriatim.

First: Defendant was negligent as a matter of law because she violated sections 544(a) and 551 of the Vehicle Code.

This proposition is untenable. An examination of the record discloses that there was presented to the trial jury direct evidence of eye witnesses in support of each and every fact set forth above. From these facts the trial jury may have believed that defendant acted as a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances would have acted in giving a signal for a left turn and then proceeding to turn north at the intersection on to Azusa Avenue, even though when 100 feet east of the intersection she observed the car in which plaintiff was riding approaching on the highway, approximately 400 feet west of the intersection. Therefore defendant was not negligent as a matter of law.