Farum v. Garrison

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants to recover a judgment for damages arising out of an automobile accident. The defendants answered and a trial was had before the trial court sitting with a jury. The verdict was for the defendants. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial. The motion was granted and the defendants have appealed under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In their first point the defendants claim that the evidence was clearly insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff because it showed that the plaintiff’s negligence was a contributory cause of the injuries sustained by him. The accident happened at the intersection of two cross-roads in a district where the speed limit was 20 miles per hour. As the plaintiff was approaching the crossing from the east he saw the defendants’ ear 100 or 150 feet south of the intersection. Plaintiff slowed down to 15 miles per hour and entered the intersection at that speed. He had his lights on, but it was just breaking day. As the plaintiff passed the curb line the other car was 20 or 30 feet south of the ear tracks. He testified that he figured he had the right of way

and took Ms eyes off of their car at that time.

Having set forth the above portions of the record the defendants assert that the plaintiff’s said negligence consisted of not keeping continuous watch on the movements of the defendants’ car. He cites and relies on

Towne

v.

Godeau,

70 Cal. App. 148, 153 [232 Pac. 1010] ;

Truitner

v.

Knight,

83 Cal. App. 655, 661, 662 [257 Pac. 447]Cal. Jur., 1928 Supp., Automobiles, pp. 135, 136, and cases. If it is his contention that after the plaintiff saw the

[156]

position of the defendants’ car he was hound to keep looking at it and not to look at, nor to look out for, other dangers, if any, the authorities cited do not support him. The plaintiff was not entitled to assume the road was unoccupied.