Stuart v. Harper

DORAN, J. This action for personal injuries and property damage arose out of an automobile collision which occurred on the westerly slope of the so-called Kellogg Hill between Pomona and Los Angeles, on February 10, 1953, at about 11:30 p. m. Mr. and Mrs. Stuart filed the original complaint; thereafter a cross-complaint was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Harper. There was a jury trial which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the Harpers and against the Stuarts in the sum of $7,700, from which the Stuarts now appeal.

As stated in appellants’ brief, “Respondents (Harpers) were traveling from Pomona to Los Angeles. Westbound traffic goes over the crest of the hill, then goes on down to another area, then comes to a rise, and then goes down a second hill. ... At the place of the accident the highway had a center divided line area and two westbound lanes separated by a single line. According to Mr. Harper’s testimony, at the time of the collision Appellant’s ear was partly in both of the westbound lanes at an angle, and the lefthand side of Respondent’s car came in contact with the lefthand [552]side of Appellant’s side. When Mr. Harper first observed the Stuart automobile it was not moving.”

The respondents’ version of the accident is that the Stuarts had been eastbound “and were going uphill on Kellogg Hill when they began having mechanical trouble with their car. . . . then the Stuarts being unable to make it up the hill, coasted backwards making a semi-circle in an effort to turn around and go back to Los Angeles. In making this maneuver, they were in a position where they were headed in a general southwesterly direction at about a 30 or 45 degree angle with the traffic lanes with their car blocking the westbound traffic lane next to the center dividing strip at the moment the Harper’s westbound automobile came over the crest of the hill in this same traffic lane, and after its brakes were applied, collided with the left rear (principally on the side) of the Stuart car with the right front of their own car. . . . The U-turn made by the Stuart automobile was made within 200 feet of the crest of the second hill and the crest did obscure visibility of westbound vehicles. Further, the U-turn was made across a dividing strip in violation of Vehicle Code, Section 525(e).”

Appellants present three issues, the first of which is that “It was error for the trial court to refuse appellants’ request to introduce Deputy Sheriff Jessup’s notebook into evidence.” It is appellants’ argument that the question of liability turned on the question “Did Appellant turn around at the intersection of Via Verde or did he back his car across the center dividing strip and attempt to proceed westerly in that manner?” and that the cross-complainants’ ease depended largely upon alleged admissions concerning this matter made by Stuart to the officers.