Parsekyan v. Thompson

FILES, J.

Plaintiff, a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk, was struck by defendants’ automobile. The case was tried without a jury and resulted in a judgment for defendants. The court found that defendant driver was not negligent and that the injury was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has appealed from the judgment. The sole issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence.

The record contains evidence of these circumstances :

The accident occurred on November 11, 1958, at about 6 p.m. It was dark, the weather was clear and the street dry. Plaintiff was crossing Ventura Boulevard from north to south in a marked crosswalk near the intersection of Matilija Avenue. Ventura Boulevard is divided into six lanes. Traffic was heavy. Defendants’ Buick was westbound in the first lane north of the center line, at a speed between 30 and 35 miles per hour. The posted speed limit there was 35 miles per hour.

[850]

The driver was looking ahead and his headlights were on. Plaintiff safely crossed the westbound lanes and arrived at or near the center of the street (2 feet south of the center line according to defendant; 2 steps north of the center line according to plaintiff). When she realized that an eastbound vehicle would not stop for her she moved backwards three or four steps. The driver of the Buick applied his brakes and swerved to the right. The front of the Buick cleared the plaintiff, but she backed into the extreme rear of the left side of the car.

Vehicle Code, section 560, subdivision (a) (section 21950 in the 1959 reeodifieation) requires that a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk. This section does not necessarily require a driver to anticipate that a pedestrian who has safely crossed in front of him will suddenly reverse his course and again step into the path of the vehicle.

(Giles

v.

Happely,

123 Cal.App.2d 894 [267 P.2d 1051].)

Plaintiff argues that in this case the fact that she reversed her course is immaterial because defendant did not see her pass in front of him the first time. The driver testified that when he first saw the plaintiff she was 2 feet south of the double line which marks the center of the street, and that she was then moving backwards towards the path of his car. Plaintiff’s theory is that her right of way in a crosswalk is the same whether she is walking forwards or backwards; and that in evaluating the conduct of the driver, plaintiff must be regarded simply as a pedestrian lawfully moving across the center of the street from south to north. Even though we assume that a pedestrian running backwards has the full protection of Vehicle Code, section 560, it does not follow that there is no support for the trial court’s finding that defendant was free from negligence.