McNeil v. Yellow Cab Co. of Lancaster & Palmdale

Opinion

COBEY, Acting P. J.

Plaintiff, Chester N. McNeil, appeals, following trial to the court, from a judgment for defendants, Yellow Cab Company of Lancaster and Palmdale and Arthur Calvin Scharf, in his action against them for damages for personal injuries. The appeal lies. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a).)

[118]

At the conclusion of the first phase of a bifurcated trial (the liability phase, see Code Civ. Proc., § 598), the trial court found that a taxicab, owned by Yellow Cab Company (a corporation), and operated by Scharf, in the course and scope of his employment by Yellow Cab, in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger, was involved in an intersection collision on May 12, 1972, that the taxicab was equipped with seat belts, but that they were not visible to plaintiff, and that it was not established by expert testimony that the apparent unavailability to plaintiff of seat belts proximately caused his claimed injuries.

According to

Greyhound Lines, Inc.

v.

Superior Court

(1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 356, 360 [83 Cal.Rptr. 343], under current California decisional law, the trier of fact decides whether a common carrier’s failure to provide seat belts amounts to negligence.

1

It seems to us that the rule should b.e the same with respect to a failure to provide

visible

seat belts. This leaves as the sole question on this appeal whether expert testimony that plaintiff’s nonuse of seat belts proximately caused his claimed injuries was legally necessary or merely helpful. (See

Truman

v.

Vargas

(1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 976, 982 [80 Cal.Rptr. 373].) According to this decision, if the facts sought to be proved are within the general knowledge of laymen, expert testimony is not required.