Ward v. Read

California Supreme Court Sep 26, 1933 No. Docket No. L.A. 14118.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while certain jury instructions were imperfectly drafted, they were not misleading when read as a whole in the context of the entire charge and the evidence presented. Consequently, the judgments in favor of the plaintiffs were affirmed.

Issues

Whether jury instruction number 12 was prejudicially erroneous due to its definition of negligence and omission of contributory negligence.
Whether the use of the term 'directly' instead of 'proximately' in jury instructions constituted reversible error.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its conduct toward the defendant during testimony or in denying a motion for a new trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The question with which we are concerned is whether, in view of all the instructions given, the jury as reasonable men and women might have been misled so as to apply an incorrect rule of law.”

“The respective definitions are almost identical and it is not reasonable to suppose that the jury would perceive the difference, when used in the connection in which they appear in the instruction.”

“When we consider the language of this court used upon a former occasion, and the instructions as a whole, we are compelled to the conclusion that the jury was not confused nor misled.”

THOMPSON, J.

Two actions were instituted against the defendant for damages arising out of a collision between an automobile driven by him and one operated by the plaintiff Bobert E. Mathews, and owned by plaintiff Bertha L. Ward, the first action being by the plaintiff just named to recover for injuries to herself and damage to her automobile, and the second by the other occupants of the machine, all of whom were related to Mrs. Ward, to recover for injuries to themselves as follows:

Leontine Mathews, a daughter, $15,000,

Evelyn E. Mathews, daughter-in-law, $10,000,

Bobert E. Mathews, son, $15,000,

John Edward Mathews, grandson, $ 5,000.

The defendant not only answered but filed a cross-complaint against Bertha L. Ward and Bobert E. Mathews, by which he sought to recover damages to his automobile.

[67]

The causes were consolidated for trial and verdicts returned in favor of the plaintiffs as follows:

Bertha L. Ward, $3,000,

Leontine Mathews, $1,000,

Evelyn E. Mathews, $ 500,

Robert E. Mathews, $10,000.

Nothing was awarded the grandson. Prom separate judgments entered upon the verdicts the defendant prosecutes these appeals.

The accident occurred on the morning of October 25, 1930, at about 6:10 o’clock on a highway in the county of Riverside. The plaintiffs were traveling in a westerly direction toward the city of Riverside and the defendant was driving easterly. The two machines collided at a point where the highway had been cut through a hill, leaving steep banks on either side, and at the time a fog prevailed which caused the highway to be wet and slippery. The appellant testified that he was driving at the rate of twenty-five miles per hour, but other witnesses said he was traveling at a speed as high as forty-five miles per hour. The respondent Robert E. Mathews testified that he had been driving the car at a rate of about twenty-five miles per hour prior to the accident, but had reduced his speed to five miles per hour just immediately before, when he had heard the approach of appellant’s machine. The highway at the point of collision was sixteen feet wide with crushed granite shoulders on either side from four to six feet wide.

Ward v. Read

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief