Ammenti v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority

FOX, P. J. Plaintiff, a passenger on a “big red” streetcar operated by the defendant between Los Angeles and Long Beach, sued for damages sutained when the ear in which he was riding ran out of control down an 810-foot incline leading out of defendant’s main terminal in Los Angeles, jumped the tracks at the foot of the incline, and collided with four trucks.

Trial by jury resulted in a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals, alleging prejudicial error on the part of the trial judge in reading to the jury a safety order of the Public Utilities Commission, which defendant claims was inapplicable and misleading.

Two questions, therefore, are presented: (1) Was the Public Utilities Commission safety order erroneously introduced into the proceedings by the trial judge; and, if so, (2) Was the error prejudicial to defendant’s cause so that a new trial should be ordered. In deciding the second point, this court must keep in mind the admonition of article VI, section 4Yz of the California State Constitution, which provides that no judgment shall be set aside or a new trial granted in any ease for such an error “. . . unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”

At plaintiff’s request, the trial court instructed the [335]jury as follows: “I hereby instruct you that at the time of this accident General Order No. 98 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Section 12.26 thereof, read as follows: ‘It is strongly recommended that all passenger stage corporations and street railroad corporations, either singly or collectively, establish comprehensive driver training programs, the objectives of which shall be to thoroughly train drivers in the operation of the vehicles to be driven; acquaint drivers with their responsibilities and duties; improve the drivers’ compliance with all applicable rules, regulations and laws; and thereby show said drivers the importance of, and inculcate in them a desire to observe, the fundamental precepts and practices of safe driving.’ ”

Plaintiff argues that the safety regulation can be reasonably interpreted only if it is held to apply to all drivers of public passenger vehicles. However, the terms of other sections must be examined in order to determine the scope and coverage intended by this Public Utilities Commission regulation.