Jitsuda v. Hirt

YORK, P. J. The accident which forms the basis of the instant litigation occurred in the city of Los Angeles on August 7, 1937, at approximately 1:50 o’clock in the morning at the intersection of East First Street and Central Avenue.

It appears from the record herein that appellant, the proprietor of a Japanese noodle shop, left her place of business at the time stated and was on her way home. She walked west on the south side of First Street for a short distance, crossed Central Avenue and said “hello” to a friend, who was standing near the traffic signal at the southwest corner of the intersection. Appellant paused for a moment at this point, looked both to the east and to the west, [682]and saw no automobile traffic approaching from the west, but did see the headlights of an automobile coining toward the intersection from beyond Alameda Street which was the first street east of the intersection in question. She thereupon started to walk in a northerly direction across First Street and had progressed to a point slightly north of the street ear tracks in the center of the street, when she suddenly saw respondent’s automobile very close to her, and remembered nothing more.

Respondent made a right-hand turn into First Street from Alameda and was proceeding westerly on First Street east of its intersection with Central Avenue. In the meantime a truck which had been traveling south on Central Avenue reached the intersection and was preparing to make a left-hand turn into First Street, when respondent passed in front of, or “made a little curve right ahead” of the truck and collided with appellant.

At the outset of the trial, by agreement of counsel, the question as to whether appellant was walking within or without the lines of the crosswalk was made a disputed issue.

At the close of the trial, the jury brought in a verdict in favor of respondent. From the judgment which was thereafter entered pursuant to such verdict, this appeal is prosecuted, as well as from an order by which appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied.

Appellant urges that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the implied findings that respondent was not negligent and that appellant was eontributorily negligent. Also, that the court committed prejudicial error in giving two specified instructions to the jury.

First Street runs in a general easterly and westerly direction. However, west of its intersection with Central Avenue its course turns to the north approximately 25 degrees from its course east of the intersection, and the curb lines of the two streets ‘ ‘ on the northwest corner of the intersection form an acute angle of approximately 50 degrees by reason of the further angular intersection of Central Avenue from the north, this angle being approximately 15 degrees west.” North of its intersection with First Street, Central Avenue is fifty-five feet wide and south thereof narrows down to thirty-four feet. As result of such irregularity in the way the two streets intersect and are laid out, a pedestrian crossing First Street