Catton v. Kerns

California Court of Appeal Apr 26, 1932 No. Docket No. 391.Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in instructing the jury on a statute requiring pedestrians to walk along the left-hand edge of a highway, as the statute applies only to pedestrians walking along a highway and not to those crossing or standing near it.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on a statute requiring pedestrians to walk along the left-hand edge of a highway under the facts of the case.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We think the intention of the legislature plainly appears from the language used and that the statute applies to a pedestrian walking along a highway and not to one crossing the same.”

“We think this contention must be sustained and that the giving of this instruction was not proper, in view of the pleadings and the evidence.”

[95]

BARNARD, P. J.

These two actions, both brought to recover damages for personal injuries, were tried together and, by stipulation, have been consolidated on this appeal.

About 2 o’clock on the morning of January 1, 1930, the two plaintiffs and their wives left the Sunnyside Country Club and drove westerly along the highway toward Fresno, the car being driven by the plaintiff Shaw. After proceeding about a mile and a half from the country club they decided to return to the club. The car was stopped and the two plaintiffs got out, and walked into a field on the north side of the highway, while Mrs. Shaw took the wheel and turned the automobile around so that it faced in an easterly direction. She stopped the automobile on the south side of the highway, opposite the place where the plaintiffs had left the road. There is some evidence that when the automobile was stopped its left front wheel was past the middle of the highway, and that the automobile then faced slightly in a northeasterly direction. About three minutes after Mrs. Shaw turned the automobile around the plaintiffs returned to the highway, but before starting across the same to enter the car they stopped at a point north of the highway, where one of the men was telling the other a story. According to the plaintiffs’ witnesses, the point at which they stopped was three or four feet north of the traveled portion of the highway, while according to the defendants’ version this point was about eighteen inches or two feet north of this traveled portion. While the plaintiffs were thus standing, neither one of them facing the east, the defendant Kerns approached in an automobile driving west. Kerns testified that he thought the plaintiffs’ car was moving toward the north side of the road and that he pulled over to his right, and while so proceeding his car struck the plaintiffs, causing the injuries complained of. It appears that the traveled portion of the highway was sixteen feet in width. These actions, which followed, were tried with a jury, both resulting in verdicts for the defendants, and from the judgments which followed this appeal is taken.

The main point relied upon for reversal is that the court erred in instructing the jury as follows:

[96]

Catton v. Kerns

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief