107 Cal.App.2d 163, 18275, Faeh v. Union Oil Co.

Docket Nº:18275
Citation:107 Cal.App.2d 163, 236 P.2d 667
Opinion Judge:[10] Mccomb
Party Name:Faeh v. Union Oil Co.
Attorney:[7] Brennan & Cornell and Jerome L. Doff for Appellant. [8] Bauder, Gilbert, Thompson & Kelly for Respondents.
Case Date:October 29, 1951
Court:California Court of Appeals

Page 163

107 Cal.App.2d 163

236 P.2d 667

EDWARD D. FAEH, Appellant,


UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (a Corporation) et al., Respondents.

Civ. No. 18275.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Second Division

Oct. 29, 1951

Page 164


Brennan & Cornell and Jerome L. Doff for Appellant.

Bauder, Gilbert, Thompson & Kelly for Respondents.



Plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment in defendants' favor after trial before a jury in an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident, (2) an order denying his motion to correct a notice of intention to move for a new trial nunc pro tunc, pursuant to the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and (3) there is a purported appeal from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Page 165

Facts: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants (respondents) and pursuant to the rules set forth in Estate of Isenberg, 63 Cal.App.2d 214, 217 , the facts are:

Defendant corporation was the owner of an autocar 10-ton tractor and trailer. At about 11 p. m. on March 12, 1948, defendant Coppage was driving the tractor and trailer southerly on Valley Boulevard. At the same time plaintiff was driving a Buick sedan in a northerly direction on a through highway named Mission Road.

Defendant Coppage came to a complete stop at the intersection of the two highways in compliance with a stop sign on Valley Boulevard. He intended to make a left hand turn onto Mission Road and continue in a southerly direction. When he stopped he observed the lights of plaintiff's car about 300 feet easterly of the intersection and believing that he had ample opportunity to cross into the intersection before plaintiff's car entered it he proceeded at about 5 miles per hour.

He then glanced to the right and observed that the traffic was clear, and then looked to the left and saw plaintiff's automobile approximately 60 feet away and in the lane of traffic nearest the easterly curb. After observing plaintiff's car the second time defendant Coppage applied his brakes when he was about 10 feet into the intersection and stopped within 32 inches. The automobile which plaintiff was driving struck the inside front wheel of defendants' truck moving it 3 feet sideways. The impact caused plaintiff serious personal injuries.

A police officer testified he wrote on the police report that the sobriety of plaintiff was unknown, but that he detected the odor of alcohol on plaintiff's breath.

Questions: First: Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in giving three instructions concerning the same subject, to wit, whether defendants' vehicle entered the intersection when plaintiff's vehicle was on a through highway and constituted an immediate hazard?

No. The jury was properly instructed that even though the propositions governing defendant's conduct were stated in various ways neither the repetition of instructions nor any other behavior on the part of the judge in delivering the charge was meant to indicate in one way or another what he thought of the controversy.

Clearly the mere repetition of instructions upon the same subject in view of the trial judge's admonition did not constitute

Page 166

prejudicial error. (Rios v. Bennett, 88 Cal.App.2d 919, 925 .)

Neither Taha v. Finegold, 81 Cal.App.2d...

To continue reading