Cooper v. Smith

California Supreme Court Jun 17, 1930 No. Docket No. Sac. 4306.Published

Before: Finch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that where the evidence is in substantial conflict regarding negligence, contributory negligence, and the last clear chance doctrine, the jury's findings are conclusive on appeal. The court further held that the trial judge's instructions, when read as a whole, did not improperly direct a verdict for the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings on negligence and contributory negligence.
Whether the doctrine of last clear chance was applicable under the conflicting testimony.
Whether the trial court's instructions to the jury were erroneous or prejudicial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The foregoing evidence is clearly and substantially conflicting on the issues of the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence and the question of the defendant’s last clear chance to avoid the accident”

FINCH, J.,

pro tem.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when struck by the defendant’s automobile. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed.

The accident occurred April 27, 1927, on the highway running in a northerly direction from Chico. At the time of the accident H. J. Stover’s automobile was parked on the east side of the highway, facing north, the' left wheels

[564]

about three feet east of the east edge of the pavement, which was fifteen feet in width. The plaintiff’s truck, facing south, was parked on the opposite side of the highway, the left wheels thereof being about three feet west of the west edge of the pavement. The plaintiff was standing by the side of Stover’s automobile, about two feet from the pavement. About 60 feet south of the plaintiff’s position there is “a slight turn in the road” to the east, but the plaintiff had an unobstructed view of the highway for about 600 yards in a southerly direction. The plaintiff testified:

“I made a survey down the highway 150 or 200 feet to see if I had time to cross, . . . and seeing that there was no other car in sight I immediately started across the highway, . . . took a step or so, glanced to the north to see that no more cars were coming, probably took one more step, making probably three or four steps, again glanced to the south and seen the machine was on top of me. ... At that time I was walking leisurely, probably three or four steps, probably a step to the second, not over about four seconds, when I glanced up and seen this ear on me. . . . It was coming from the south, . . . about 40 or 45 feet away from me. . . . The car was in about the middle of the east half of the highway and I was within a foot or 18 inches of the middle of the highway. ... I dodged back one step to try to get out of the way of it, and as I did that, why the car bumper hit my leg, broke it here, and I hit the fender and the headlight and the cowl and pretty near every other place that is on that (left) side of the car. ... It swayed to the left towards the center of the highway, and I dodged back a step to the east to get out of its way.” He further testified that the defendant gave no warning of her approach, that she was driving at about 40 miles an hour, and that her automobile finally came to a stop about 160 or 165 feet from the point where it struck him.

Cooper v. Smith

AI Brief

FINCH, J.,

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief