Webster v. Orr

HENSHAW, J.

Plaintiff brought his action against defendants to recover damages for injuries sustained through the negligence of the driver of a truck owned by defendants. Pie received a verdict at the hands of the jury. From the judgment which followed and from the court’s order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial, they have appealed.

The evidence, as is usual in such cases, is in sharp conflict. That offered by plaintiff was to the effect that he was carrying a friend upon his two-passenger motorcycle and was proceeding eastward upon a street in the city of Oakland.

[427]

Suddenly and unexpectedly the driver of defendants’ truck, with his horses trotting or galloping and apparently not under perfect control, cut across his path, the pole struck the motorcycle, and he and his companion were thrown to the ground and trampled upon by the horses. The conflicting evidence of defendants was that the heavy truck was proceeding at a walk, the motorcycle was going at a rapid rate of speed, and was passing vehicles moving in the same direction without due care, that while so being driven it collided with the tongue of the truck wagon which was crossing this street in an orderly manner, and that by reason of this collision thus occurring plaintiff, without negligence upon the part of defendants, sustained his injuries.

The driver of defendants’ truck was called as a witness on behalf of defendants and gave his version of the accident. Upon cross-examination he was asked the following questions. To them defendants’ counsel objected. The objections were overruled, and the answers given as follows:

“Q. How long ago was the accident? A. It was on the 20th of July, 1911.

“Q. When you were employed by Orr & Breedlove ? A. Tes, over a year ago.

“Q. Did you leave their employ after the accident? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. Were you discharged because of the ..accident? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. Was that the reason given? A. I expect so.

“Q. Was any reason given? A. Yes.