Bowman v. Motor Transit Co.

PRESTON, J.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as the result of an automobile accident, the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the record in this cause contains evidence amply sufficient to uphold the verdict and judgment and that it is free from prejudicial error, both in the admission and rejection of testimony and in the giving and refusing of certain instructions. A

resume

of the case follows:

At the time of the accident plaintiff, in an Overland car driven by her husband, was proceeding in a southerly direction on Fullerton Road, Orange County, toward its intersection with Central Avenue. Defendant’s stage was traveling west on Central Avenue. At the northeast corner of the crossing a lemon orchard was so situated as to somewhat obscure the view at the intersection for drivers approaching

[654]

it from the directions stated. As he entered the crossing plaintiff’s husband reduced the speed of his ear to permit the passing of an automobile traveling east on Central Avenue, but, proceeding slowly, he failed to see the approaching stage at his left until it was almost upon him; he then swung hard to the right in an effort to avoid it. The stage, however, continued swiftly toward him, catching his car by the front left fender. This caused the rear end to swing with great force against the side of the stage. The ear then rebounded and finally crashed to a standstill at the curb, with the back ripped from the front seat and husband and wife thrown unconscious in the rear. The stage stopped a short distance beyond.

Plaintiff did not regain consciousness for some days due to severe bruising and laceration of the head, and concussion of the brain. She also suffered a nervous shock throughout her whole body,- together with impairment of her mental powers and senses and a serious and probably permanent injury to her eyesight. The jury returned a verdict in her favor, assessing damages at $18,750, plus $326.90 expenses. They also returned two special verdicts, one to the effect that at said time defendant stage was being operated at a negligent rate of speed in excess of fifteen miles per hour and the other to the effect that defendant failed to keep a proper or careful outlook for the approach of plaintiff’s auto and failed to yield it the right of way. The judgment for plaintiff followed, from which defendant prosecutes this appeal.