Gerardi v. Bonoff

RICHARDS, J., pro tem.

T

his is an appeal from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through being struck by the defendants’ automobile while he was in the act of alighting from a street-car upon which he had been a passenger. The street-car was proceeding westerly along West Eleventh Street, in the city of Los Angeles, on the evening of July 13,1912, at about the hour of 6:30 o ’clock. The automobile of which the defendant Karl M- Bonoff was the driver and the defendant D. Bonoff was the owner, and was also an occupant at the time of the accident, was proceeding westerly along the northerly side of said street. As the street-car approached the intersection of West Eleventh Street and Bonnie Brae Street the plaintiff gave the signal

[148]

to stop and the car slowed down and stopped at said intersection. The plaintiff alighted and was about to cross to the northerly curb of Eleventh Street when he was struck by the defendants’ automobile and severely injured. Immediately prior to the slowing down and stopping of the street-car the defendant’s automobile had been driving alongside of the car on the proper side of the street and at a rate of speed variously estimated by the respective witnesses at from fifteen to twenty-five miles an hour. The width of the street at that point did not permit an automobile to pass at a distance from the running-board or lowest steps of the street-car equal to four feet while passing the same. The complaint alleged that the defendants ’ negligence consisted in the fact that they were violating the provisions of the traffic ordinance of the city of Los Angeles then in force in the manner and at the speed at which they were operating their automobile immediately before and at the time of plaintiff’s injuries; and also alleged that the defendants were negligent in operating their said automobile in a careless manner and at an unlawful and dangerous rate of speed. These averments were denied in the defendants ’ answer and the cause proceeded to trial upon the issues thus framed. Upon the trial the defendants contended and offered some evidence to show that the street-car slowed and stopped with unusual suddenness and without warning to the occupants of the automobile, in consequence of which they were unable to check the speed of their machine in time to stop or to avoid the accident. There was evidence to the contrary upon these matters and the appellants do not seriously insist that upon the whole the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.