Edgar v. Citraro

California Court of Appeal Feb 25, 1931 No. Docket No. 7070.Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on proximate cause because the evidence established as a matter of law that both defendants were negligent and that their concurrent negligence proximately caused the collision.

Issues

Whether the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the element of proximate cause constituted prejudicial error.
Whether the trial court's instruction regarding the burden of proof was adequate.
Whether the evidence supported a finding of proximate cause as a matter of law.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the court was warranted in holding as a matter of law that the negligence of each defendant contributed proximately to the collision”

“the evidence shows beyond all reasonable inference to the contrary that the collision resulted from the concurrent negligence of the defendants and that the negligence of each proximately contributed thereto.”

THE COURT.

Plaintiffs, as the parents of Florence Edgar, a minor, brought this action to recover the damages they claimed to have sustained by reason of the injuries their daughter received in a collision between two automobiles driven respectively by the defendants Citraro and Pratt, which occurred at Fifth and Julian Streets in San Jose. The action was consolidated for trial with one brought by John Edgar, a minor, against the same parties and arising out of the same collision, and upon trial before a jury the plaintiffs herein were awarded a verdict against both defendants. The result of the ease brought by John Edgar, a minor, does not appear from the record. From the judgment entered in favor of these plaintiffs the defendants have taken separate appeals.

At the time of the collision Florence Edgar was one of several occupants of the Citraro machine. The others were her mother, Mrs. Rose Edgar, her aunt, Mrs. Frances P. Traylen, and her brother John, all of whom, including Florence, brought actions for damages. The actions instituted by Florence Edgar and Mrs. Traylen were tried separately and resulted in verdicts in their favor and against both defendants; and separate appeals were taken from the judgments entered therein, which we have this day affirmed.

■(Florence Edgar, a Minor, etc.,

Citraro et al.

(Nos. 6865 and 6867),

ante,

p. 163,

post,

p. 764 [297 Pac. 645, 651], and

Frances P. Traylen

Citraro et al.

(Nos. 6866 and 6868),

ante,

p. 172,

post,

p. 763 [297 Pac. 649, 652].) The evidence in the present case is substantially the same as that adduced in the Florence Edgar case, and all of the essential facts as to the manner in which the accident happened are set forth in the opinion filed therein. As there stated the Citraro car, which was traveling westerly along Julian Street, entered the intersection first and had nearly reached the other side when the Pratt car, which was traveling southerly along Fifth Street, entered the intersection and' struck the right rear end of the Citraro car, which overturned twice. Both

Edgar v. Citraro

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief