Logan v. Lewis

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries caused by a collision between a motorcycle and an automobile.

Appellant’s first point is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.

According to the evidence introduced by the plaintiff the accident occurred about as follows: Piedmont Avenue, in Oakland, is one of the thoroughfares of that city running nearly north and south. At nearly right angles thereto it is intersected but not crossed by Monte Vista Avenue, which comes into it from the east or right as one looks north. The neighborhood at this intersection is a business district of the city. On the day of the accident the plaintiff was riding on a motorcycle traveling north on Piedmont Avenue toward the intersection of Monte Vista Avenue, and the defendant’s automobile, driven by his chauffeur, Kurihari, and cpntaining his son and a young lady, was at the same time being driven from the east or right on Monte Vista Avenue toward Piedmont Avenue. At the corner of the intersection nearest plaintiff as he approached, a row of business houses entirely obstructed the view of defendant’s chauffeur to his left, so that he was entirely unable. to see the approach of plaintiff on his motorcycle until he .passed this corner. The plaintiff was traveling north on the right-hand side of Piedmont Avenue toward Monte Vista Avenue at a speed of about ten miles per hour, and the automobile of the defendant, a large Pierce-Arrow ear, swung south around this obstructed corner at a speed of about twenty-five miles per hour, and in doing so came suddenly into the direct path on which plaintiff was

[665]

traveling, by reason whereof there was a collision between the motorcycle and the automobile. The automobile did not cross the street to the right of the intersection before turning to the left, but took a short, sharp turn to the left, cutting this corner at a place and a rate of speed prohibited by law.

It is defendant’s contention that his car had come to a stop and was at rest when the accident occurred, and that the plaintiff in fact ran into the automobile. Two of his witnesses so testified; and he argues that the physical facts of the collision demonstrate this to be true. As to this controversy between the parties, it is sufficient to say that the record presents a sharp conflict in the testimony, in the presence of which under a familiar rule appellate courts cannot disturb the finding of the jury or the trial court.