Haight v. White

California Court of Appeal Sep 4, 1936 No. Civ. 11071Published

Before: Crail

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law, as the question of whether an ordinarily prudent person would have acted similarly under the circumstances is a question of fact for the jury.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in holding the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Contributory negligence is a question of law only when the court is impelled to say that from the facts reasonable men can draw but one inference pointing unerringly to the negligence of the plaintiff contributing to the injury.”

“Under the evidence in this case that question was for the jury.”

CRAIL, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant notwithstanding the verdict after the

[427]

jury had returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The sole question necessary for determination on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in holding the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law under the facts hereinafter stated.

The defendant and his wife, who was a sister of the plaintiff, were guests of the plaintiff in her home. The defendant became intoxicated and had a family quarrel with his wife, as a result of which the defendant announced to the plaintiff that he was immediately leaving without his wife to go back to his home in Colorado. The defendant’s automobile at the time was parked in the driveway of plaintiff’s home. The defendant, intoxicated as he was, went out to his automobile, the plaintiff following him. In an endeavor to dissuade him from leaving his wife and also in an effort to protect the defendant from trying to drive his automobile while intoxicated, the plaintiff got into the front seat beside him and endeavored to prevent him from inserting the ignition key. All the time she was attempting to persuade the defendant not to drive away under such circumstances. When she saw that defendant was determined to go and before the car was in motion, the plaintiff requested defendant to let her out of the' car and was moving to get out of the automobile before it started. However, the defendant paid no attention to the plaintiff’s request and before plaintiff could get out of the car defendant suddenly threw his automobile into motion. Plaintiff continued to importune defendant to stop and let her out, but this the defendant refused to do. The car hit a tree violently before the defendant even reached the highway. At no time did plaintiff intend to go for a ride with defendant or to become an occupant of the car while it was being driven. We have viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. It is unnecessary for us to restate the rule which- applies when a trial court grants a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The defendant contends that “the defendant being intoxicated to the knowledge of plaintiff, it was contributory negligence as a matter of law for her to enter his automobile knowing that he intended forthwith to drive the same”. He relies upon

Haight v. White

AI Brief

CRAIL, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief