Atkins v. Bouchet

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment against them for the sum of two thousand six hundred dollars, damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, who was struck by an automobile owned by the defendant Bouchet and operated by defendant Joseph H. Meiss.

The only issue upon the appeal is as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, appellants contending that under the facts admitted by the plaintiff in her testimony, she was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and that the trial court erred in failing to grant defendants’ motion for a nonsuit and in failing to direct a verdict in their favor.

We think the plaintiff in this case was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and we base our conclusion upon the case of

Finkle

v.

Tait,

55 Cal. App. 425 [203 Pac. 1031], reconsidered and approved by our supreme court in a most learned and comprehensive review of cases of this character.

(Burgesser

v.

Bullock’s,

190 Cal. 673 [214 Pac. 649].) The undisputed facts in the instant case show that the plaintiff while crossing the street glanced neither to the right nor the left, and with her umbrella held down to her waist line had her view of traffic on her left completely cut off and did not see the automobile at any time until after the collision, although the accident occurred in the middle of the day. This situation makes peculiarly applicable the language of

Finkle

v.

Tait,

wherein it was said: ‘' There was evidence that he was carrying a box of raisins twenty-three inches long, thirteen inches wide and

[96]

ten inches thick on his shoulder in such a position that it may have obscured his vision. If that was the case, then it was negligence for him to attempt to cross the street with his vision obstructed in that manner.” In the case of