Friedman v. Barbe

DESMOND, J.,

pro

tem.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment in a jury-waived trial against both defendants in the sum of $3,500, assessed as damages for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. Both defendants have appealed, but no brief has been filed by defendant Barbe. Where hereinafter the term appellant is used it refers to the other defendant, Ward. About 7:40 P. M. of July 30, 1929, plaintiff was riding in the rear seat of an automobile owned and operated by her son-in-law, the appellant Ward, who at that time was driving north on Berendo Street near Beverly Boulevard in the city of Los Angeles. Beverly Boulevard is a main traveled thoroughfare with boulevard stop signs throughout its course. The appellant brought

[673]

his car to a full stop as he. reached the southerly line of Beverly Boulevard and observed traffic moving east and west along that, street. According to his testimony, he saiv more than one automobile coming from the west and a street-car and at least one other automobile approaching from the east. He decided to enter the intersection between this traffic moving east and west, and when he had reached the car tracks came to a full stop, the street-car in the meantime having passed his ear on its westward course. Appellant put his hand out for a left turn, and as his car stood upon the tracks, Barbe driving toward the east, struck the rear of the Ward car with his own auto, moving it in an easterly direction, and in this collision the plaintiff suffered the injuries for which damages were awarded.

Appellant claims that the record does not as a matter of law disclose any evidence of negligence on his part. Respondent contends that the evidence justified the court in finding appellant was negligent in two particulars : First, in not waiting at the southerly curb line until all traffic with which he might collide had moved both east and west; next, in coming to an abrupt stop on the car tracks in approximately the middle of a street where traffic was moving in both directions. It may be noted here that Berendo Street does not cross Beverly Boulevard in a direct line, the northerly portion of that street being some 60 or 70 feet west of the southerly portion measured between the center lines of the street. The diagram of the locale also indicates that when appellant stopped his car in Beverly Boulevard, it stood in a diagonal position with the forward part pointing to the northwest across the northerly or west-bound car line, the rear portion being across the east-bound car line. Appellant testified that when he stopped his car in that position, the street-car had reached a point approximately 60 feet to the west. He also testified that at that instant the only other west-bound traffic was an automobile approximately 200 feet east of him traveling at a speed which he estimated at 30 miles per hour; further, that he remained stationary for about ten seconds. Under these circumstances, can it be said that there was no evidence to justify the finding that this appellant was negligent