Arthur v. City of Los Angeles

FOX, J. The sole issue on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial after verdict and judgment thereon for the city. The motion was “granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and judgment.” It is the city’s position that “there is no evidence from which any inference may be drawn that there was any negligence in the operation of the police car” involved in this accident. The record does not sustain the city’s position.

Plaintiff, while a passenger on a westbound Transit Lines bus, occupied the first space near the front door on a seat running lengthwise. She was on the right or north side [596]of the bus facing south. Because of a sudden stop, plaintiff struck the right side of her forehead against a metal post adjacent to her seat and received injuries for which she seeks damages from the city. She executed and delivered to the Transit Lines a covenant not to sue, for which she received $810.

The accident occurred at approximately 7 p. m. on December 12, 1950. The bus in which plaintiff was riding was traveling west on Melrose Avenue in Los Angeles. It stopped at the intersection of Madison Avenue and Melrose to load and unload passengers. When the bus started up it proceeded westward on Melrose in the lane of traffic “nearest the curb.” When the bus was some 50 to 100 feet beyond Madison Avenue, witness Meyer, who was seated alongside the plaintiff, facing south, observed an automobile “cut quite sharply in front of the bus; that is, moving from left to right . . . Towards the north curb.” The collision took place an instant later “in the lane closest to the north curb,” which was “the lane the bus had been proceeding along from the very beginning.” The witness left the bus in a moment or two and saw the car in front of the bus. That this was the car that cut in front of the bus is made clear from the following questions and answers on cross-examination:

“Q. Did you see the car which you saw cut in front of the bus at any time prior to the time the bus driver applied the brakes on the bus? A. Yes.

“Q. Where was the car when you had seen it prior to the time the bus driver applied the- brakes ? A. It was in the process of passing the bus on its left lane and cutting in front of the bus towards the north curb; that is, toward the lane on the inside, near the north curb . . .

“Q. Did you see any other automobile besides the one that was stopped in front of the bus that you saw after the collision ? A. No.