Hulbert v. Laturco
Before: Agee
AGEE, J.
Following a collision between plaintiffs’ Cadillac and defendants’ truck, plaintiffs (husband and wife) recovered a judgment of $1,103.43 for damage to their Cadillac. The wife was driving and will be referred to hereafter as “respondent.”
Defendants’ appeal raises but one issue, whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the trial court’s finding that their truck driver was negligent.
The collision occurred on December 18, 1959, about 4 p.m., on Highway 128 between Yorkville and Boonville, in Mendocino County. The highway is divided by a white center line into a northbound lane and a southbound lane.
The Cadillac was going north and the truck was going south. The highway curves gradually to the right going north and to the left going south. It is slightly upgrade going south. There is a steep bank on the easterly side, cut from the hill on that side. Weather conditions and visibility were good.
Appellants pinpoint the issue in these words: “The sole issue then in this case is whether there is any direct evidence or inference from direct evidence which would support a finding of the truck having been driven so that it crossed the white line.”
The appellants’ equipment consisted of a “cab over” tractor and two trailer vans. The overall rig was 60 feet long. It was returning from Fort Bragg empty.
Respondent testified that when she saw the truck coming toward her it was about 60 feet away and had just come out of a turn into a straight stretch of highway. Respondent was quite familiar with this section of the highway, having driven it almost daily for 10 years.
Her version of what then happened is as follows: “Q.... Now, when you first saw the truck was any part of it over the white line into your lane? A. Yes, I believe. I am not sure about that, but it was over where it frightened me, and I got way over on my side. Q. To the best of your recollection was it over the white line or not? A. Yes.... Q..., Now, when
[375]
you first saw that truck what did you do? A. I pulled over as close as I could to the hank.... Well, I was over the bank as far as I could get, and right on the bank there is a rock. And I hit it, and my front wheels went up the bank, and I was stopped. And then he hit the rear end of my car. Q. I see. You were stopped at the time of the impact? A. Yes. Q. Now, were you able to observe the path of the truck from the time you first saw it until the impact? A. Yes. It seemed like he was just coming closer and closer to me, and I got real panicky. Q. Now, was he coming over into your lane or going back into his own lane or what? A. Well, after he hit me he was going back in his own lane. Q. I mean before the collision? Did you observe the path the truck took; that 60 feet before the collision is what I am getting at. A. Yes; seemed like he was going toward me all the time. ’ ’
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)