Quinn v. Oil Fields Trucking Co.

DORAN, J. The complaint herein seeks damages for the wrongful death of Gladys Irene Quinn, for personal injuries to decedent’s minor child, and for property damage to the surviving husband's automobile. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant trucking company and its truck driver, Edelmiro Gomez. Thereafter, a motion for new trial was granted; the defendants appealed, and the reviewing court affirmed the order granting a new trial (130 Cal.App.2d 720 [279 P.2d 775]). On May 9, 1956, a trial before a different judge and jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendants; a motion for new trial was denied and plaintiffs appealed.

Appellants’ sole ground for appeal is that “There is no evidence to support the verdict and judgment entered pursuant thereto; the evidence shows defendant negligent as a matter of law. ’ ’ There is no contention that any prejudicial error was committed. The appellants aver that “it is impossible to conceive how the jury could have rendered any verdict other than one for plaintiffs; certainly there is no basis for any theory of unavoidable accident, much less a finding that the defendant was not negligent.”

From the truck driver’s testimony it appears that defendant’s truck was proceeding north on Hawthorne Boulevard at about 25-30 miles per hour towards the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard, at about 12:30 p.m. The truck and trailer were about 55 feet long and weighed 40,000 pounds; it was a clear, dry day, visibility was good, and the truck driver was familiar with the intersection in question. There was evidence that the intersection was in so-called open country with view unobstructed except for a signboard located just south of Sepulveda and about 100 feet west of the main traveled portion of Hawthorne. A boulevard stop sign was posted about the same distance back, which sign controlled traffic moving east on Sepulveda. The signboard interfered with vision from the boulevard stop sign and west thereof. Plaintiff’s Chevrolet was proceeding east on Sepulveda.

The evidence was to the effect that when about 200 feet south of the intersection, the truck driver looked to the left for traffic on Sepulveda and saw none. When about 150 feet south of the intersection the driver looked to the right for traffic going west on Sepulveda and noticed none at that time; there was no traffic going either north or south on Hawthorne Boulevard. The truck driver then looked forward again and observed the plaintiff’s Chevrolet about 5 feet in front of [586]