Toon v. Pickwick Stages

California Court of Appeal Dec 10, 1928 No. Docket No. 6335.Published

Before: Strother

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court acted properly in instructing the jury to reconsider and correct an informal or insufficient verdict, and that the defendant was not prejudiced by the conduct of counsel or the jury instructions.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its handling of alleged prejudicial conduct by plaintiff's counsel.
Whether the jury instructions regarding negligence and proximate cause were erroneous.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the jury to reconsider and amend its verdict after an initial informal finding.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“When the verdict is announced, if it is informal, or insufficient in not covering the issue submitted, it may be corrected by the jury under the advice of the court, or the jury may again be sent out.”

“The court properly sent the jury out with instructions to find plaintiff’s damages specifically. The whole issue was at large when they retired.”

STROTHER, J.,

pro tem.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries suffered in the collision of a light laundry truck driven by him, with a stage of defendant.

The defense was a denial of negligence on the part of defendant, and contributory negligence of plaintiff. The case was tried by a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

The accident occurred in March, 1921, at the intersection of Cacique and Voluntario Streets in the city of Santa Barbara. At the northwesterly corner of the intersection was a store or filling station, which obstructed the view between the northerly part of Cacique Street and the westerly part of Voluntario Street.

Plaintiff was driving easterly on Voluntario Street, and defendant’s stage was going southerly on Cacique Street, thereby entering the intersection to the left of plaintiff. Plaintiff’s testimony was that he entered the intersection at the rate of from eight to twelve miles an hour; that though he looked to the right and left, he never saw the stage, even at the moment of impact, and that he was rendered unconscious by the shock. Sanchez, a witness for plaintiff, testified that plaintiff was traveling at the rate of ten miles an hour just before he entered the intersection.

Ott, who was driving the stage, was a witness on behalf of defendant. He testified that he was traveling at the rate of between twenty and twenty-five miles an hour when he arrived at a point three or four feet from the intersection line; that the plaintiff was then about the same distance from the intersection and was going from three to six miles an hour faster than the witness, and went straight ahead at the same speed. The witness said that he put on his brakes as he crossed the property line and was going between ten and fifteen miles an hour at the time of collision.

The testimony of Brooks, a passenger on the stage, also a witness for the defendant, was practically to the same effect as that of Ott, except that on direct examination he testified that the stage was going fifteen to twenty miles an

[373]

Toon v. Pickwick Stages

AI Brief

STROTHER, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief