Harrisson v. Mikelson

STURTEVANT, J. The plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages for injuries suffered in an automobile collision. The defendant answered denying certain allegations contained in the complaint and pleading contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiff and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed.

The defendant makes several points but they are but different methods of asserting that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The record discloses that on the ninth day of August, 1929, the plaintiff was driving an Essex coach and some members of her family were riding with her. They were driving westerly along RiversideRedondo Boulevard in Los Angeles County. They continued their course until they reached Main Street, which crossed their path at right angles. The plaintiff testified that she reached a point where the east line of Main Street if extended would cross the street on which she was driving. As she approached that point she slowed down until she [372]was traveling about five miles an hour. She looked to the left and there was no traffic; she looked to her right and could, see the defendant’s car some distance back of a tree that stands in or near Main Street. At the time of the trial it was stipulated that the tree was two hundred and fifty feet north from the northerly line of RiversideRedondo Boulevard. The plaintiff estimated that each of said streets is sixty or seventy feet wide. The street is paved in the middle. The paved portion is about forty feet wide and on each side there is a gravel border. When the plaintiff observed the defendant she thought he was driving approximately thirty-five miles an hour. Assuming that the defendant would obey the law the plaintiff proceeded to cross the intersection. As she did so she increased her speed first to twelve miles an hour and then to fifteen miles an hour. As she did so she changed her gears from second to high. At about the time she was in the middle of the street she again observed the defendant approaching without having reduced his speed, and at that time he was approximately one hundred and twenty-five feet from her. When, as she contended, her ear had proceeded to a point where the front end was across the paved portion of the highway and merely the rear end of it was on the paved portion, the defendant’s ear continuing forward collided with the right-hand end of her rear bumper. The force of the impact was such as to cause plaintiff’s car to swerve to her right and at the same time turn over on its left-hand side. Having done so the front end rested within the border of the lot on the northwest corner of the intersection and the rear portion rested on the street south of the north property line on Riverside-Redondo Boulevard. The plaintiff testified to facts showing there were no obstructions preventing the plaintiff from seeing the defendant, or preventing the defendant from seeing the plaintiff at the time the plaintiff’s car reached the intersection. The record also discloses that the northeast corner of the intersection was occupied by a gas station. The improvements thereon were so located that they did not obstruct the view from points on Main Street to points on RiversideRedondo Boulevard except at points a considerable distance back.