Roher v. Leonard & Holt

STURTEVANT, J.

Anna Roher was injured while a passenger riding in a bus operated by the defendants Leonard & Holt when their bus collided with an automobile operated by the defendant Clorinda Rossotto. She filed a complaint charging negligence in general terms against both defendants. The defendants appeared and answered and a trial was had before the trial court sitting with a jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and from the judgment entered thereon the defendants have appealed and have filed separate sets of briefs.

Appeal of Leonard & Holt.

The defendants, Leonard

&

Holt, requested the trial court to give an instruction regarding the maximum of speed which under the law was permissible at the intersection of Brewster» Avenue and Myrtle Street in Redwood City, San Mateo County, at the time of the accident. The trial court refused that instruction, but did give an instruction quoting the introductory part and subdivision (a) of section 113 of the Motor Vehicle Act. (1 Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1851, 1886.) These defendants complain of the ruling as being error. However, we' see no error in the ruling. In the preceding instruction the trial court had instructed the jury that a common carrier is bound to exercise the highest degree of care in transporting its passengers. An instruction regarding minimum speed might have been pertinent, but an instruction regarding maximum speed would have had no effect excepting to confuse the jurors.

The trial court also gave an instruction regarding the doctrine of

res ipsa loquitur.

It is not claimed that the instruction was improperly worded. However, these defendants claim that under the facts no instruction on that subject should have been given because in the instant case these defendants called some witnesses to the stand and introduced some evidence proving, or tending to prove, how the accident occurred. As stated above, the plaintiffs pleaded their case by pleading negligence in general terms. The defendants cite and rely on

Marovick

v.

Central Cali

[722]