Walker v. Mason

NOURSE, P. J.

In an action for personal injuries tried before a jury the plaintiff recovered a verdict for $3,415. The defendant appeals from the judgment on typewritten transcripts.

Plaintiff was walking in a southerly direction across Market Street in San Francisco at the southeast intersection of Market and Third. At the same time defendant was

[362]

driving a jitney bus in an easterly direction along Market. Plaintiff was struck by the right front fender of defendant’s car just as he reached a point about three feet from the southerly curb of Market Street.

Plaintiff plants his case on defendant’s negligence in failing to obey the “stop” signal for east-west traffic on Market Street. On this point there is a sharp conflict in the evidence, which the jury resolved in favor of plaintiff.

Defendant insists that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. The argument is based upon some evidence tending to show that plaintiff failed to look to his right as he crossed the street and on evidence tending to show that he stopped and backed into the oncoming car. On both points the evidence is in conflict and this court cannot say that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

(Reaugh

v.

Cudahy Pack. Co.,

189 Cal. 335, 343 [208 Pac. 125];

Schwartz

v.

Acme Express Co.,

102 Cal. App. 615 [283 Pac. 358];

Hanson

v.

Cordoza,

106 Cal. App. 500 [290 Pac. 62].)

In this connection the appellant argues that we should follow

Finkle