Spinazzola v. Margolis

SHINN, P. J.

Dave Margolis and Prank Wisner were named codefendants in an action brought by Paula I. Spinazzola for damages for personal injuries arising out of an intersection collision between two automobiles. Plaintiff’s two minor children also sued through their mother as their guardian ad litem. A jury trial was had in which a verdict was returned in favor of both defendants and against plaintiff. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied and she now appeals from the judgment and from the order denying her motion for a new trial. That order is not appealable and the appeal therefrom is dismissed.

(Torres

v.

City of Los Angeles,

58 Cal.2d 35, 55 [22 Cal.Rptr. 866, 373 P.2d 906].)

Appellant first advances the contention that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict and judgment in favor of respondents. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to respondents (see

Primm,

v.

Primm,

46 Cal.2d 690, 693 [299 P.2d 231]), this contention is patently devoid of merit.

Around noontime of April 22, 1958, a clear and dry day, defendant Margolis was eastbound on 57th Street and plaintiff was northbound on Victoria Avenue in Los Angeles. The view of the approaching vehicles was unobstructed. Plaintiff was traveling between 20 and 30 miles per hour and when about 75 feet from the intersection began slowing down until she reached the intersection. At that point she was moving about 5 miles per hour. She then speeded up and proceeded to enter the intersection while accelerating. She testified that she had a definite recollection of looking- both ways, that is, to the east and west before she entered the intersection. She testified she did not see defendant’s approaching vehicle. It would appear that plaintiff’s automobile was about in the middle of the intersection when she was struck on the side by defendant’s automobile. As a result of the impact plaintiff’s vehicle was caused to deviate from its course and jumped a curb ending up against the pillar of a porch of a house located on the northeast corner of the intersection. While the evidence was neither conclusive nor undisputed, reasonable

[650]