Silverberg v. Terasaki

DORAN, J. This is an appeal from the judgment following the jury verdict for defendant.

Appellant was driving a small Anglia automobile east on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles in the lane next to the center line. Respondent was driving west in the lane next to the curb. As recited in appellant’s brief, “The traffic signals at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Vine Street changed to ‘Stop’ for eastbound traffic as appellant approached said intersection. Appellant stopped his automobile with the front end of said automobile just west of the westerly line of the westerly crosswalk at said intersection. When the traffic signals changed to ‘Go’ for the east and westbound traffic, Appellant gave the proper signal with the mechanical signal on his said automobile and also with his arm for a left turn to go north on Vine Street. Appellant proceeded in an easterly direction into the intersection and stopped to yield to the westbound traffic. The westbound automobile in the lane next to and north of the center line of Sunset [174]Boulevard signalled and turned left to go south on Vine Street. The westbound automobile in the second lane north of the center line of Sunset Boulevard stopped and yielded the right of way to Appellant and the driver motioned with his arm for Appellant to continue his turn in front of him. Appellant proceeded in his turn and when Appellant was about entering the most northerly lane or curb lane of travel on Sunset Boulevard for westbound traffic, he observed the automobile of Shuhei Terasaki, Respondent, which was being driven by Paul I. Terasaki, Respondent, with the consent of Shuhei Terasaki, Respondent. At the time Appellant first observed Respondent’s automobile, it was being driven in a westerly direction in the lane next to the north curb of Sunset Boulevard and was east of the easterly crosswalk line of Vine Street and was passing to the right of the automobiles that had yielded to the Appellant.

“Appellant proceeded out of the intersection by accelerating and endeavoring to get out of the path of the oncoming automobile of Respondent’s. As Appellant’s automobile was leaving the intersection, Respondent’s automobile forcibly struck the right rear one-half of the Appellant’s automobile.” It appears from the record that it was raining or had been raining and the street was wet. Again, quoting from appellant’s brief, “Respondent testified that he first applied his brakes after he saw Appellant’s car, but that his car did not stop but skidded on the wet pavement and struck the middle and rear portions of appellant’s car at the time when Appellant’s car was about six (6) to eight (8) feet south of the north boundary of the intersection, and Appellant’s car was then about twenty-five (25) feet west of the east boundary of the intersection.”