People v. Wisdom

California Court of Appeal Aug 14, 1933 No. Docket No. 1047.Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a laborer working on a public highway is not contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to maintain a constant lookout for vehicles, and that a motorist has a duty to exercise care and provide warning when approaching such workers.

Issues

Whether a highway laborer is contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to continually watch for approaching vehicles while working.
Whether a motorist is required to sound a horn when approaching a laborer working on the highway.
Whether the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The laborer is entitled to keep his mind on his work and it is not negligence as a matter of law for him to fail to continually look and listen for approaching vehicles.”

“Under such circumstances the contributory negligence of the laborer is a matter of fact to be determined by the jury.”

“We have concluded that under these circumstances the motorist who fails to change the direction of his ear should give timely warning of his approach by sounding his horn”

MARKS, J.

On the twenty-seventh day of July, 1931, plaintiff was working on United States Highway Number 80 at a point between Bostonia and Johnstown in the county of San Diego. He was an employee of the State Department of Public Works, Division of Highways.

United States Highway Number 80, which at this point runs in an easterly and westerly direction, has a paved portion in its center sixteen feet in width, with an eight-foot shoulder on its south side and an eleven-foot shoulder on its north side, both of which were fit for use by pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the day in question.

At the point of the accident involved here, a grader was being driven easterly along the southerly portion of the highway by J. D. Williamson, another employee of the State Department of Public Works, Division of Highways. The plaintiff was riding on the rear of the grader. One of his duties required that he keep the paved portion of the highway clear

[696]

of loose stones. Seeing several stones lying on the northerly edge of the pavement, he jumped from the grader and proceeded across the highway to remove them. He saw an automobile approaching from the east at a distance of about 600 feet. While removing the stones he saw the approaching ear a second and a third time, the last when it was about 75 yards distant from him. He was standing on the extreme northern edge of the pavement facing in a northwesterly direction when he was struck by the defendant’s car and seriously injured. The grader was using the southerly eighteen inches of the pavement and the southerly dirt shoulder. The day was clear, the pavement was dry and there was no other traffic on the highway.

The plaintiff filed this action to recover damages for his injuries, and the intervener filed its complaint in intervention to recover the moneys expended by it under the Employers’ Liability Act of the State of California. The jury returned a verdict against the defendant and the judgment followed, which he seeks to have reversed on this appeal.

The defendant presents as ground for a reversal of the judgment, first, that the evidence shows that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; second, errors of the trial court in its rulings on the admission of

People v. Wisdom

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief