Mathes v. Aggeler & Musser Seed Co.

SHAW, J.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants, the plaintiff recovered judgment and the defendants appeal.

The points urged in support of the appeal have no merit and require little discussion.

[700]

The allegation of the complaint charging negligence stated that at a time and place described, the two defendants, each driving an automobile, “so negligently operated their respect tive automobiles that the same collided one with the other, forcing the automobile of the defendant, Euth Purcell, violently over against the plaintiff while she was standing at or near the sidewalk of the said intersection, and'injuring her as hereinafter set out.” It is the established law in this state with respect to allegations of negligence by one operating a car or other vehicle, that it is sufficient to aver that he operated the same in a manner so negligent that it struck the plaintiff and injured him, and that the exact manner of the injury need not be otherwise described.

(Stein

v.

United Railroads,

159 Cal. 370, [113 Pac. 663].) The defendants concede that this may be true where there is but one person and one vehicle involved, but insists that if two persons, in operating their respective vehicles, are concurrently guilty of negligence causing the accident, this rule does not apply. We can see no sound reasons for making any such distinction. The objection is untenable.

One of the items of damage was the expenses of plaintiff’s treatment at a hospital. It appeared that the plaintiff was taken to a hospital, and remained there receiving treatment , several days, but there was no direct evidence of any contract between the plaintiff and the owners of the hospital that she was to pay for such treatment. The law, of course, in the absence of evidence to show gratuitous service, would imply an agreement by her to pay the reasonable value. It was, therefore, proper for the plaintiff to introduce evidence as to the amount that would be a reasonable charge for the services. The objection to such evidence was properly overruled.