Wantz v. Ammons

California Court of Appeal Jun 17, 1935 No. Civ. 9117Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence supported the jury's finding that the defendant was solely negligent and that the plaintiff was free from negligence. Furthermore, the court held that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance given the conflicting evidence presented at trial.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of negligence and proximate cause.
Whether the trial court erred in providing a jury instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Wantz was free from any negligence and that the collision was proximately caused by the sole negligence of defendant Ammons.”

“The conflicting evidence suggests room for the application of the doctrine of last clear chance and the question of whether it did apply depends upon what version of the evidence the jury believed”

ROTH, J.,

pro

tem.

Respondent Wantz, at about midnight on May 27, 1932, was operating his automobile in a westerly

[644]

direction on Foothill Boulevard as he approached the confluence of San Bernardino Road with Foothill Boulevard. Foothill Boulevard east of and up to the point of confluence runs in a general easterly and westerly direction. Immediately prior to the point of actual contact between the two boulevards, Foothill Boulevard commences to curve gradually to the northwest so that at the point of contact between the two roads Foothill Boulevard is already bowed to the north, the northerly direction becoming more accentuated as one leaves the point of contact traveling from east to west, so that in continuing on Foothill Boulevard after the point of contact has been reached one actually travels to the northwest. Except for the name, San Bernardino Road is in reality a continuation in a direct westerly direction of Foothill Boulevard, as one travels from east to west. The other respondents were passengers in the car driven by Wantz.

As Wantz approached the juncture of the two roads he saw the car of defendant Ammons traveling on Foothill Boulevard from the northwest to the southeast at a point approximately 500 feet from a viaduct or underpass (referred to in the evidence as a culvert), which was at a point approximately near where San Bernardino Road joins Foothill Boulevard and marks a spot near which the actual collision between the two automobiles took place. When appellant’s automobile was at a point approximately 200 feet northwest of the viaduct, respondent Wantz concluded he was traveling between 40 and 45 miles per hour. At the time that Wantz saw appellant approximately 500 feet northwest of the viaduct, he (Wantz) was approximately 150 to 160 feet east of the culvert traveling at between 20 and 25 miles per hour in a westerly direction on Foothill Boulevard “approximately straddle of the north line of the center lane”. As Wantz approached the point of contact of the two roads, he operated his car gradually to the left, continuing in that manner until within approximately ten feet of the point of collision. With reference to what actually happened just prior to the collision, the testimony of Wantz was:

Wantz v. Ammons

AI Brief

ROTH, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief