Glenn v. City of Los Angeles
| Decision Date | 16 February 1950 |
| Citation | 96 Cal.App.2d 86,214 P.2d 533 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | GLENN v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. Civ. 17080. |
Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney, Bourke Jones, Assistant City Attorney, Edwin F. Shinn and Alan G. Campbell, Deputy City Attorneys, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Charles E. Beardsley, Los Angeles, Montgomery G. Rice, Los Angeles, of counsel, for respondent.
Plaintiff and her sister was crossing the intersection of Sixty Street and Manhattan Place in Los Angeles. They were walking from north to south on the easterly crosswalk of the intersection, plaintiff on the right of her sister. It was daylight of a summer's evening, and the pavements were dry.
As the two ladies reached the curb on the south side of Sixty Street and one of them stepped up onto the curb, they were struck by a wildly careening automobile. This automobile was on fire; it continued into a building across the sidewalk, and set it on fire, too.
The plaintiff was seriously injured. She was hospitalized and at home in bed for approximately five months. And she lost that time, and more, from her work.
The intersection in question was 'protected' by stop signs in Manhattan Place on the north and south sides of Sixth Street.
The automobile which struck the plaintiff was the property of the City of Los Angeles and was driven by Mr. Earl Rombeau, a police officer employed by the City, and at the time engaged in his duties as such.
Up to this point is no conflict in the testimony and no argument as to the truth of the facts recited.
Mr. Rombeau testified that he had been driving easterly along Sixth Street. Approaching the intersection he saw no cars coming north or south on Manhattan Place. When he was halfway through the intersection the left front end of his car was struck with terrific force by an automobile going south on Manhattan Place.
The manager of a store near the intersection had just closed up and was standing on the sidewalk at the intersection. He testified, corroborating the officer's testimony; and, further, that the car which struck the city car was going thirty-five to forty miles an hour, went right past the boulevard stop without slackening its speed, and ran into the city car.
The defendant, Mr. Alfred J. Barber, the driver of the car coming south on Manhattan Place, testified that he was going slowly; that he made the boulevard stop as he should have made it, and then proceeded in low gear out into the intersection; that when he was past the center of the intersection his car was struck by the city car; that the city car had been coming toward him at a speed of fifty miles an hour. This testimony was corroborated by a friend of Mr. Barber, who was riding with him in the front seat.
The case against the defendant Rombeau was dismissed, because he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. City of Gridley
...procedure for the enforcement of claims against cites. See also Veriddo v. Renaud, 35 Cal.2d 263, 217 P.2d 647; Glenn v. City of Los Angeles, 96 Cal.App.2d 86, 214 P.2d 533; Dillard v. Kern County, 23 Cal.2d 271, 144 P.2d 365, 150 A.L.R. 1048; Redlands High School Dist. v. Superior Court of......
-
Ansell v. City of San Diego
...action aganst the city. And in express reliance upon those two cases it has more recently been held in Glenn v. City of Los Angeles, (1950), 96 Cal.App.2d 86, 214 P.2d 533, that presentation of a claim to the city was not required by section 1981 in order to hold the city liable for damages......