Opitz v. Schenck

LORIGAN, J.

This action is to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between the motorcycle on which he was riding and an automobile which defendant was driving. Defendant appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff on a verdict of the jury for two thousand dollars.

The accident happened at the intersection of Washington Street and Crenshaw Boulevard, in the city of Los Angeles, and occurred through the negligent operation by defendant of his automobile over and across the intersection of said streets.

The first point urged for a reversal is that the complaint does not state a cause of action in its allegations of negligence. The complaint charged that about the intersection of said streets above mentioned “defendant negligently .and carelessly drove and ran an automobile with great force and violence against the plaintiff and thereby hurled the plaintiff with great force and violence against the ground, and that plaintiff was by reason of the premises greatly bruised and injured . . . .” It was further alleged that defend

[638]

ant, in driving and operating his automobile over and across the intersection of said streets, did not pass to the right of tihe center of the intersection of said streets before turning northeasterly on said Crenshaw Boulevard, but drove and operated said automobile over and across said intersection in a northeasterly direction to the left and westerly of the center of said streets, in violation of an ordinance of the city of Los Angeles prohibiting it, in other words, that defendant “cut the comer” at said intersection of said streets, and that by reason of the violation of said ordinance in doing so, and the negligent and careless manner in which defendant operated and drove said automobile, the same ran into and against' the plaintiff as aforesaid to his permanent injury.

It is insisted that there is an entire omission in these allegations to specify the particular acts of negligence which caused the injury. But it was not necessary to set the facts out with any more particularity than the complaint did. At common law it was not necessary in charging negligence in the operation of a vehicle 'by a defendant whereby a collision with a vehicle operated by plaintiff occurred to aver anything more than that the collision occurred, and that it occurred through the negligence of defendant. This rule is still the rule of pleading in this state. Here the complaint alleged that the defendant drove his automobile with great force and violence against plaintiff and thereby hurled him to the ground, and that this was “done by him carelessly and negligently. ” Under the rule obtaining this was all the allegation that was necessary.