Reuman v. La Monica

California Court of Appeal Apr 20, 1943 No. Civ. No. 3217Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that jury instructions defining the sudden emergency doctrine as requiring a defendant to do "the best he could" were erroneous, as the correct standard is whether the defendant acted as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on these erroneous instructions.

Issues

Whether jury instructions stating that a defendant in a sudden emergency must do "the best he could" to avoid an accident correctly state the law of negligence.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a motion for a new trial due to erroneous jury instructions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Both of these instructions contain the same vice in defining the standard of care required of La Monica under the conditions. They required him to do “ the best he could under the circumstances to avoid the accident.””

“One who is subject to this rule is required to act as a reasonably prudent person would act under similar circumstances.”

“We have studied the entire record and can find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in granting the motion for new trial.”

MARKS, J. This is an appeal from an order granting a motion for a new trial because of prejudicial error in instructions to the jury.

The case grew out of a motor vehicle collision which occurred on Grand Avenue, near its intersection with Washington Avenue, in the city of Santa Ana, California, at about two o’clock on the afternoon of December 7, 1941. The day was clear and the pavement was dry.

Grand Avenue runs north and south. It has an eighteen foot asphalt pavement in its center with a macadam shoulder eight feet wide on the east side, and another six feet on the west side of the pavement. There is also a dirt shoulder on the east side of the macadam strip.

Washington Avenue runs east and west and dead-ends in Grand Avenue. It is paved to a width of about thirty-three feet. There is a boulevard stop sign on Washington Avenue near the intersection.

Just before the collision Cliff F. Reuman was driving his automobile north on his right hand side of Grand Avenue at a speed of about twenty-five miles an hour. The other plaintiffs were riding with him. He saw two automobiles approaching the intersection from the north. The car nearest him was being driven by Perry Cook and the other by defendant John La Monica. A third car described as a Ford with red wheels, entered the intersection from Washington Avenue without making a stop and made a turn into Grand Avenue. Reuman reduced the speed of his car and swerved to his right. At the time of the collision it was still south of the intersection traveling at a speed of not more than ten miles an hour if it had not stopped, and it is probable that its right .wheels were on the dirt shoulder. The La Monica car swerved around the left side of the Cook car, skidded eighty-four feet and crashed into the left front of the Reuman automobile, injuring plaintiffs.

Cook testified that he was driving south on Grand Avenue at a speed of not more than forty miles an hour with the La Monica car following him; that when he was about sixty feet north of the intersection he saw the red-wheeled Ford enter it; that he immediately applied the brakes of his car and stopped it a little less than forty feet south of the intersection with the red-wheeled Ford immediately in front of it.

Cook further testified that there was some loose gravel on the pavement and shoulders near the intersection; that when [305]

Reuman v. La Monica

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief