Furuta v. Randall

California Court of Appeal Nov 6, 1936 No. Civ. 1627Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the defendant's violation of the California Vehicle Act regarding trailer lighting constituted negligence per se and was the proximate cause of the decedent's death. The court further held that contributory negligence was a question of fact for the trial court and that the trial judge's oral remarks did not invalidate the findings.

Issues

Whether the defendant's failure to equip a trailer with lights as required by statute constituted negligence per se and proximate cause.
Whether the driver of the vehicle in which the decedent was a passenger was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
Whether the trial court's oral remarks regarding parking laws constitute reversible error when not reflected in the findings.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence offered for impeachment purposes.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The violation of this statute constituted negligence per se on the part of Carl William Randall, the driver.”

“As the trial court found that the failure to have any lights on the trailer and motor boat was the proximate cause of the accident we cannot disturb the judgment on appeal”

“Under the facts of this case the question of contributory negligence was one of fact for the trial judge and not one of law for this court.”

MARKS, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial, and from a judgment awarding plaintiff damages resulting from the death of Nobuko Furuta, his minor daughter, which occurred in a collision between an automobile in which she was riding and a motor boat on a four-wheel trailer being drawn by an automobile driven by Carl William Randall on Huntington Beach Boulevard, a public highway in Orange County, shortly after twelve-thirty o’clock on the morning of March 28, 1934.

William H. Randall and Mrs. William H. Randall are the parents of Carl and signed his application for an operator’s license. Their sole liability in this ease is under the

[386]

provisions of section 62 of the California Vehicle Act as it existed at the time of the accident.

William Knight, Robert Young and Donald Matthews were companions of Carl on his trip and were joined as defendants in the action. No judgment was rendered against them. When in this opinion we refer to the defendants we do not include these three minors. William H. Randall was regularly appointed guardian

ad litem

of Carl William Randall, William Knight, Robert Young and Donald Matthews, all of whom were minors.

On March 28, 1934, Carl was the owner of a Ford coupe and a cabin cruiser motor boat twenty and one-half feet in length. At the time of the accident he was engaged in transporting the motor boat over the Huntington Beach Boulevard. The motor boat was mounted on a four-wheel trailer which was being towed behind his automobile. The bow of the motor boat projected about four and one-half feet over the front of the trailer and the stern three or more feet over its rear. The trailer was not equipped with lights but Carl had hung a lighted lantern with a red chimney on the propeller at the stern of the boat. One of the tires of the trailer became deflated and the car was stopped with the left wheels of the car and trailer on the pavement and the right wheels on the oiled shoulder of the highway. The evidence offered by defendants is to the effect that when the ear was stopped the boys went to the rear of the motor boat and one of them detached the lantern from the propeller and handed it to another who stood several feet,to the rear of the motor boat. Carl decided that the place was not suitable for the repair of the tire because of the proximity of a ditch which paralleled the pavement and prevented him from driving the automobile and trailer completely off the pavement. He reentered his automobile and started driving along the highway at a speed of about five miles an hour while one of his companions followed about ten feet in the rear of the motor boat with the lighted lantern in his hand. Robert Young testified that when the automobile and trailer had proceeded about thirty-five feet he saw the headlights of the automobile in which Nobuko Furuta was riding approaching from the rear at a distance of about one hundred feet. He testified that he waved the red light until the approaching automobile was so close that he had to jump

Furuta v. Randall

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief