Fox v. Ravera

SPENCE, J.

The above-entitled actions arose out of a collision between the automobile of defendant and the automobile of plaintiff Frank A. Fox in which said plaintiff and plaintiff Cora M. Fox, his wife, were riding. The two actions were consolidated and tried before a jury. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

The accident occurred at the intersection of California and Battery Streets in San Francisco. Plaintiff Frank A. Fox was driving his automobile in a westerly direction along California Street on the northerly side of a westbound cable car which was approaching Battery Street. Defendant Ravera was proceeding in a northerly direction along Battery Street. It appears that neither the motorman of the cable car nor the drivers of the automobiles intended to stop at said intersection. Defendant swerved to the left in attempting to cross in front of the oncoming cable car and the motorman suddenly stopped his car in the intersection to avoid a collision. The motorman testified that he stopped his car within a distance of six feet. Defendant passed within four or five feet of the front of the cable car as it came to a stop. Plaintiff Frank A. Fox, who had been driving at about the same speed as the cable car, did not stop with the cable ear and defendant’s automobile collided with the left side of plaintiff’s automobile on the north side of California Street at a point to the west of the center line of Battery Street.

Appellant seeks a reversal contending that respondent Frank A. Fox was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. We find no merit in this contention. The question of whether the driver of an automobile is chargeable with negligence is ordinarily a question for the jury.

(Sites

v.

Howrey,

108 Cal. App. 348 [191 Pac. 597];

Klenlce

v.

Ryer,

118 Cal. App. 238 [4 Pac. (2d) 998].) We find nothing in this case to make it an exception to the general rule. There was a substantial conflict in the testimony relating to the speed of the vehicles and other material matters, but the jury resolved the conflict in favor of

[38]