McCown v. Berry Construction, Inc.

California Court of Appeal Apr 2, 1970 No. Civ. No. 9480Published

Before: Kerrigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that jury instructions regarding a driver's duty to signal before stopping or turning were proper in a rear-end collision case, as the conduct of the lead driver is relevant to determining the proximate cause of the accident. Furthermore, the court held that whether a defendant was following too closely is a question of fact for the jury rather than negligence as a matter of law.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on Vehicle Code sections 22107 and 22109 regarding signaling requirements.
Whether the defendant was negligent as a matter of law for following the plaintiff's vehicle too closely.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The jury here could not determine whether defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of the accident without also examining the conduct of plaintiff’s driver.”

“The instructions complained of were properly given.”

“Under such circumstances, the question as to whether the defendant was following too closely is a factual one”

Opinion

KERRIGAN, Acting P. J. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict for defendants in a personal injury action arising out of a two-car rear-end collision. Plaintiff charges that the trial court erred in instructing the jury relative to the provisions of section 22107 [signaling before turning] and section 22109 [signaling before stopping] of the Vehicle Code, and that defendant was negligent as a matter of law because he was following too closely.

On June 12, 1963, the plaintiff, Gardner McCown, in his capacity as a drivers’ license examiner of the State of California, was conducting a driving test of Warren S. Guy, age 73, to determine Guy’s qualifications for a license renewal. Plaintiff was riding in the right front seat of a 1963 Cadillac owned and operated by Guy. The test commenced at the Ontario motor vehicle office. The accident happened just before the test was completed as the Cadillac was proceeding in an easterly direction on Fourth Street returning to the departmental office. The defendant, John Castle, was driving a Ford pickup truck owned by his employer, the defendant Berry Construction, Inc. As the pickup was proceeding east on Fourth Street, it followed the Cadillac a short distance to a point in front of the motor vehicle building. During most of the time that the Ford was following the Cadillac, the two vehicles were traveling between 15-20 m.p.h. Within the last 50 feet before reaching the building, the speed of the Cadillac was reduced to 8-10 m.p.h. and the defendant Castle decelerated accordingly. The plaintiff told Guy to turn into the driveway on the east side of the building. The defendant Castle glanced in his rearview mirror on the left hand side of the Ford, and when he again looked forward, the Cadillac had suddenly stopped in front of him. The front of the Ford [322]collided with the rear of the Cadillac. The defendant-driver testified that Guy gave no arm or mechanical signals prior to the impact.

Following the accident, defendant Castle talked with plaintiff’s driver and told Guy that he had not observed any signal. He asked Guy to work the directional lights on the Cadillac and, when an attempt to do so was made, the signals failed to work for a period of three-four minutes before functioning.

The issues before the trial court were defined as follows: (1) negligence; (2) proximate cause; and (3) nature and extent of injuries and damages.1

McCown v. Berry Construction, Inc.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief