Wauchope v. Baumback

MR. JUSTICE THOMPSON (R. L.) Delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from a judgment which was rendered upon a verdict for damages for personal injuries resulting from a collision between automobiles.

The only question involved in the appeal is whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

Kettleman Lane and Quimby Avenue intersect at right angles one mile south from Lodi. The first mentioned lane runs east and west. The other one extends north and south. Both roadways are surfaced with asphalt pavement. Each is about 18 feet in width with a dirt shoulder on either side. There is no grade at the intersection of these highways. A danger sign was stationed near the western border of Quimby Avenue 200 feet from its intersection with Kettle-man Lane. November 13, 1929, at 9 o’clock P. M. the plaintiff, accompanied by his wife, was driving southerly along Quimby Avenue in their Dodge automobile. At the same time the defendant was driving easterly along Kettle-man Lane. It was dark and the headlights of both ears were turned on. The night was clear. The pavement was dry. The brakes on the plaintiff’s ear were in good condition. There was a line of trees on the westerly side of Quimby Avenue, north of Kettleman Lane, obscuring the view to some extent. The plaintiff approached the intersection of these streets at about 25 miles an hour. When he reached a point 30 feet northerly of the intersection his speed was reduced to 16 miles an hour. His view being somewhat obstructed by the trees to his right, the plaintiff

[66]

did not observe the headlights of the defendant’s car until he reached a point about 10 feet from the intersection. The defendant’s machine was then 50 or 75 feet westerly from the intersection and was running at a speed of about 45 miles an hour. There were stop signs on Kettleman Lane along which the defendant was driving. When the plaintiff first saw the lights of the defendant’s car, he shut off the gas, but permitted the car to roll along on its own momentum, thinking the defendant would stop on account of the signs. Almost instantly he realized the defendant was not slackening his speed, and therefore began to put on his brakes. At first they were not applied with full force. The plaintiff did not think the defendant would run past the stop sign without stopping. Realizing very soon that the defendant was not going to stop, the plaintiff applied his brake with full force causing the rear wheels to skid, and instantly turned his machine to the left to avoid the collision which seemed imminent. The machines came in contact near the center of the intersection. Defendant’s car ran off the road some 75 feet and landed in a vineyard. The plaintiff’s car was overturned. Both the plaintiff and his wife were seriously injured. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $2,000. The amount of this verdict is not challenged.