Roberts v. Guillory

Opinion

KANE, J. Plaintiff Robert Roberts appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict denying him. recovery for personal injuries.

On May 16, 1966, the day of the accident, appellant, a truckdriver, was assigned to deliver and unload desks for the Department of Social Services at 1360 Mission Street, San Francisco. At this location Mission Street had three westbound lanes, two for traffic, one for parking and/or [861]loading. Appellant parked his vehicle in the loading zone with the wheels touching the curb.

During the unloading process appellant, who was inside the van, noticed that a passing vehicle caused the trailer to rock. Since appellant earlier in the day observed that the hook on the street side of the trailer was bent, the sudden rock of the trailer aroused his suspicion, that the inside hook of the side door might also be faulty. Fearing that the door might come loose and swing out into the traffic, appellant decided to check the latch to make certain it was secure. In order to' do so, he jumped down through the rear door onto the pavement. It was at this moment when appellant was hit by the dump truck driven by respondent.

Appellant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing to give the following instruction (BAJI No. 3.40) to the jury: “When a person’s lawful employment requires that- he work in a dangerous location or a place that involves unusual possibilities of injury, or requires that in the line of his duty he take risks which ordinarily a reasonably prudent person would avoid, the necessities of such a situation, insofar as they limit the caution that he can take for his own safety, lessen the amount of caution required of him by law in the exercise of ordinary care.” (Italics added.)

We hold that this instruction has nq application to the facts of this case and accordingly affirm the judgment.

While it has long been established that where a workman must necessarily remain physically in the street amidst moving traffic in order to perform his duty, there is no duty imposed upon him to constantly look out for motor vehicles (Austin v. Riverside Portland Cement Co. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 225, 237-239 [282 P.2d 69]), it cannot be extended to workmen who occasionally use the street in pursuance of their work if they do so from choice and not from necessity (Milton v. L. A. Motor Coach Co. (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 566, 573 [128 P.2d 178]), or to those who are not forced to work or remain in a particular place as a matter of duty (Carlsen v. Diehl (1922) 57 Cal.App. 731, 736-737 [208 P. 150]).