Guisti v. Carlotti

MARKS, J. This is an appeal by Ralph Carlotti and Pete Bandoni from a judgment of $2,500 rendered against all defendants because of injuries received by plaintiff Carmelo Guisti while riding in an automobile as a guest of Ralph Carlotti. The automobile was owned by Pete Bandoni and was being driven by Carlotti with the consent of Bandoni. It collided with a truck owned by Frontier Farms, Inc., and driven by its employee, Ross Giffin.

The complaint alleged the intoxication and wilful misconduct of Carlotti, and the negligence of Giffin, as the proximate causes of the accident. The following special interrogatory was submitted to the jury by appellants: “Was defendant Ralph Carlotti intoxicated, as defined in these instructions, at the time of the accident?” This was answered in the affirmative, with one juror voting “no”.

Appellants maintain that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and judgment. They urge that the evidence shows that Carlotti was not intoxicated but that, if intoxicated, such intoxication was not a proximate cause of the accident. They further urge there was no evidence of wilful misconduct on his part.

The evidence on the question of Carlotti’s intoxication is sharply conflicting. No good purpose could be served by detailing it here. It should be sufficient to state that there is ample, competent and material evidence in the record to support the special verdict of the jury and the implied finding by the trial judge when he defined the motions for nonsuit, [588]for a directed verdict-and for a new trial, that Carlotti was intoxicated at the time of the accident.

The contention that the intoxication of Carlotti was not a proximate cause of the accident requires us to consider the evidence bearing on this subject. It is sharply conflicting and we will devote our attention to that part of the evidence tending to support the judgment as we are not concerned with conflicts in the evidence on this appeal.

Dos Palos Avenue is a public highway of Fresno County running in a general northwesterly and southeasterly direction through the town of Mendota. It is intersected at right angles by Derrick Avenue. During the trial the witnesses assumed that these streets ran north and south and east and west. For convenience we will make the same assumption. Dos Palos Avenue has a hard surfaced strip about nineteen feet wide along its center. It has an oiled strip about five feet wide along the east edge, and another seven feet wide along the west edge of the pavement. Derrick Avenue has a hard surfaced strip ranging from twenty-one to twenty-seven feet in width with oiled shoulders on either side, each ranging in width from seven to eleven feet. The four corners of the intersection are not right angles. The edges of the improved portions of the street return towards each other on broad curves forming the corners of the intersection. While the exact figures are not in the record, it appears that all of the intersection is either paved or oiled, and Derrick Avenue for some distance east of Dos Palos Avenue has a paved or oiled surface at least fifty-five feet wide. Boulevard stop signs are placed on Derrick Avenue on both sides of Dos Palos Avenue.