Edgett v. Fairchild
| Decision Date | 11 September 1957 |
| Citation | 153 Cal.App.2d 734,314 P.2d 973 |
| Parties | Charles A. EDGETT and Marian Edgett, husband and wife; Calvin H. Sanborn and Arlene M. Sanborn, husband and wife, Plaintiff and Appellants, v. Edwin G. FAIRCHILD, Dorris Lumber & Moulding Co., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 8902. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Bradford, Cross, Dahl & Hefner, Sacramento, for appellants.
Desmond, McLaughlin & Russell, Sacramento, for respondents.
This is an appeal by plaintiffs Calvin Sanborn, Arlene Sanborn, Charles A. Edgett and Marian Edgett from a judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of the defendants in an action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage sustained by plaintiffs as a result of an intersection accident.
The accident occurred shortly after 6 P.M. on February 9, 1954, at the intersection of Citrus Road and County Dump Road in the County of Sacramento. Citrus Road is a two-lane paved level highway about 22 or 25 feet wide. It runs north and south. Citrus Road is intersected, but not crossed, by County Dump Road from the east. The latter is a narrow graveled road. On the west side of Citrus Road just off the west edge of the highway directly across from the County Dump Road there is a four by five foot sign painted with a black background and bearing the words 'Free Dump' in white. The sign also has an arrow pointing directly at the County Dump Road. At the time of the accident the weather was misty, otherwise described as a high fog. It was getting dark, but visibility was clear. Appellants Calvin and Arlene Sanborn, and Marian Edgett, were traveling south on Citrus Road in an automobile owned by the Edgetts. Ahead of them was respondent Edwin G. Fairchild who was driving a pick-up truck south on the same road. Appellants, whose car was traveling at a speed of about 40 or 45 miles an hour, were overtaking the truck which was being driven about 30 or 35 miles an hour. Respondent testified that at the time his headlights and tail lights were lighted; that as he drove down Citrus Road he became aware of the lights on appellants' vehicle; that their car was gradually overtaking his; that he commenced giving a signal for a left turn shortly after he reached a rise in Citrus Road approximately one-fourth mile north of the intersection; that he slowed down as he approached the intersection; that he commenced to turn when his truck was 5 or 10 feet north of the intersection; that he became aware of the fact that appellants were trying to pass; that at that point his truck was 'just crossing the broken center line of Citrus Road' at which point he immediately applied his brakes and stopped 'in about one foot.' His truck stopped with the left front portion of the vehicle over the center line of the intersection. He said, 'He went on by me and sidewiped the power pole.' There was no collision of the two vehicles. The pole which appellants' car hit was located about 20 or 25 feet south of the County Dump Road and 12 to 16 feet east of the east shoulder of Citrus Road.
Appellants' evidence was that they began to pass respondent approximately 250 or 300 feet north of the intersection; that the driver sounded his horn as he started to pass; that no turn signal had been given by respondent nor did he reduce his speed; that as appellants were in the act of passing respondent's truck, and at a time when the front wheels of their car were even with the rear wheels of the truck, respondent suddenly stuck out his hand from the top of his window and made an abrupt left turn; that the driver of the automobile quickly turned to his left, avoiding a collision, but the automobile slid off of the road and hit the power pole.
Calvin Sanborn, the driver of the automobile in which the appellants were riding, testified that he had driven over Citrus Road quite a few times; that he had used the County Dump Road several times; that he was aware as he drove along that the County Dump Road intersected Citrus Road at some point ahead; that at the time he did not recall the precise point of the intersection; that he was unable to see the County Dump Road when passing respondent's truck; that he did not see the sign at the west side of Citrus Road; that as he was passing the truck Mrs. Edgett screamed; that he turned his wheel to his left and the car went out of control and off of the highway and hit the pole.
It was stipulated at the trial that any negligence on the part of Calvin Sanborn was imputable to all the appellants.
Appellants allege that the trial court erred by not giving certain instructions proffered by them. Preliminarily it should be pointed out that each party is entitled to have his theory of the case submitted to the jury in accordance with the pleadings and proof and it is incumbent upon the trial court to instruct on all material issues involved. In determining whether or not the evidence supports the theory of the requested instruction an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party offering the instruction. Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 40 Cal.2d 630, 255 P.2d 795.
The first instruction which appellant claimed should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roddiscraft, Inc. v. Skelton Logging Co.
...instructions we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party offering the instructions. (Edgett v. Fairchild, 153 Cal.App.2d 734, 738, 314 P.2d 973; Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 40 Cal.2d 630, 633, 255 P.2d 795.) With this requirement as a guide we now turn to the ......
-
Truckee-Carson Irr. Dist. v. Wyatt
...County v. Baker, 269 Ala. 111, 110 So.2d 896 (1959); Kyne v. Eustice, 215 Cal.App.2d 627, 30 Cal.Rptr. 391 (1963); Edgett v. Fairchild, 153 Cal.App. 734, 314 P.2d 973 (1957); Casalo v. Claro, 147 Conn. 625, 165 A.2d 153 (1960); Enix v. Diamond T. Sales & Serv. Co., 188 So.2d 48 (Fla.App.196......
-
Hook v. Point Montara Fire Protection Dist.
...is substantial evidence to support his theory of the case. (Stickel v. Durfee, 88 Cal.App.2d 402, 406, 199 P.2d 16; Edgett v. Fairchild, 153 Cal.App.2d 734, 738, 314 P.2d 973.) In determining whether or not the evidence supports the theory of the requested instruction, a reviewing court mus......
-
Alarid v. Vanier
...122 P.2d 47; Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co., 191 Cal. 195, 198-200, 215 P. 675 (unlighted tail light); Edgett v. Fairchild, 153 Cal.App.2d 734, 738-739, 314 P.2d 973; McEachen v. Richmond, 150 Cal.App.2d 546, 550, 310 P.2d 122; Bryant v. Tulare Ice Co., 125 Cal.App.2d 566, 569, 270 ......