Bezera v. Associated Oil Co.

California Court of Appeal Sep 26, 1931 No. Docket No. 7836.Published

Before: Gray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a taxicab company is a common carrier subject to the highest degree of care and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and that the jury's verdict regarding the liability of co-defendants was supported by conflicting evidence. Furthermore, the court ruled that the challenged jury instructions were abstract statements of law that did not improperly invade the province of the jury.

Issues

Whether a taxicab company is a common carrier subject to the highest degree of care and res ipsa loquitur.
Whether the jury's verdict absolving the oil company of liability was contrary to law and evidence.
Whether the trial court's jury instructions improperly assumed facts or invaded the province of the jury.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A taxicab company, holding itself out to serve those who apply for transportation, is a common carrier and as such is held to the highest degree of care, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in an action by the passenger.”

“An instruction is not open to the objection that it assumes facts proven or not proven, when it merely asserts an abstract legal proposition without attempting to apply it to the facts of the particular case.”

GRAY, J.,

pro

tem.

Joseph L. Bezera, while riding as a passenger for hire in a taxicab, received fatal injuries in a collision between such taxicab and an oil truck; the collision occurring at the intersection of Fifteenth and Howard Streets, in the city of San Francisco. His widow, as administratrix of his estate, brought this action to recover damages for his death against The Associated Oil Co. (hereinafter called the Oil Company), the owner of the oil truck, and its employee W. T. Gay, the truck driver; and also against Red Top Cab Co. (hereinafter called the Cab Company), the owner of the taxicab, and its employee William Chene,

[142]

the taxicab driver. After trial, the jury .returned its verdict awarding damages against the Cab Company and its employee, but absolving the Oil Company and its employee from liability. The Cab Company and its employee appeal from the entire judgment rendered on such verdict, and the administratrix appeals from that portion of such judgment which absolves the Oil Company and its employee from liability.

The Cab Company and its employee argue: 1. That quoted portions of the testimony conclusively establish that the truck driver, in making a left turn at the intersection, was negligent per

because it conclusively shows that he drove on the wrong side of Howard Street, failed to yield the right of way to the taxicab, cut the corner and a traffic button, in violation respectively of sections 122, 131 and 129 of the California Vehicle Act and sections 14 and 15 of Traffic Ordinance Number 8492, new series, of the city and county of San Francisco. 2. That such testimony further conclusively shows that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. 3. That therefore the verdict, by absolving the Oil Company and its emplojme from liability, is contrary to law and the evidence. However; other portions of the testimony quoted by the other parties raised a conflict on these issues, as to which 'the verdict is conclusive.

(Dougherty

Bezera v. Associated Oil Co.

AI Brief

GRAY, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief