Goodman v. Raposa
| Decision Date | 19 June 1957 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | William GOODMAN, a minor, by his Guardlan ad litem, Alberta Goodman; Woodrow Goodman and Alberta Goodman, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Arthur William RAPOSA, James Domingo Garcia, and Joseph R. Cecchini, Charles Giovannoni, Angelo Cecchini, Henry Cecchini and Nello Cecchini, individually and as copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Cecchini Trucking Company, Defendants, City of Stockton, a municipal corporation Appellant. Civ. 9026. |
Monroe N. Langdon, Stockton City Atty., Stockton, Carlisle C. Crosby, Oakland, of counsel, for appellant.
Keith, Creede & Sedgwick, San Francisco, for defendants. Garcia, Cecchini Trucking Co., etc.
A. Brooks Berlin and Alvin Lobree, San Francisco, Neumiller, Ditz & Beardslee, Stockton, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Honey, Mayall & Hurley, Stockton, for defendant Raposa.
Russell A. Harris, Sacramento, for defendant-appellant.
The city of Stockton appeals from a judgment entered against it on a jury verdict in favor of William Goodman, a minor, for personal injuries suffered by said minor and special damages suffered by his mother as the result of said minor being struck by an automobile while in a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of East Charter Way and South San Joaquin street within the city of Stockton.
The cause against the appellant was prosecuted under the Public Liability Act of 1923, now sections 53050 and 53051 of the Government Code.
The accident occurred at approximately 3:45 p. m. on April 7, 1953, at the easterly crosswalk or pedestrian lane located at the intersection of East Charter Way and South San Joaquin street, in the city of Stockton. It was 'broad daylight' at the time, and visibility was good. East Charter Way was and is an arterial thoroughfare, duly posted with stop signs. It is approximately 80 feet wide and runs in a general easterly and westerly direction. South San Joaquin street intersects at right angles and runs in a general northerly and southerly direction. It is approximately 40 feet wide. East Charter Way is part of State Highway number 4 as it crosses this particular intersection, and at this point it is in a 35-mile-per-hour speed zone for traffic moving east and west. An electric traffic signal light is located at each of the four corners of the intersection, the lights controlling traffic by the usual red and green colors to indicate whether traffic is to 'stop' or 'go'. These traffic lights were installed and have been in use by the city of Stockton since World War II. They are part of a general and agreed plan of operation and control of traffic along State Highway number 4, as it passes through the city. There are similar signals two blocks to the west and to the east of the intersection in question and every other block both to the west and to the east thereof for some distance. The maintenance of these signals at all times was the duty of the city of Stockton by joint agreement of the city with the State of California.
Four days prior to the occurrence of the accident, on the morning of April 3, 1953, it was observed that the electric traffic lights at the intersection in question were not working property. Several hours before noon of that day notice was given to the city, and upon investigation it was discovered that water had seeped into the underground conduit housing the cables that operated the light circuit, and as a result the wires had grounded, and this in turn was causing the traffic lights to flash the colors, or stop and go signals, at the same and improper time. About noontime of the same day the city electrician told the assistant traffic engineer that the lights were in such condition that he felt they should be turned off. The power was then turned off and the light signals put out of operation entirely.
It was ascertained that the short in the wiring occurred at a point somewhat near the center of the street about 35 feet from the signal stand and at the southwest corner of the intersection. From the morning of April 3, 1953, to the time of the accident in the late afternoon of April 7, 1953, a period of four and one-half days, the job of repairing the defective condition and putting the electric traffic signals in operation had not been completed. The job was finally finished on April 9, 1953, and the lights restored to service.
There was testimony to show that the job of repairing the defective signals could have been completed within 20 to 24 man hours of working time.
While the traffic lights were out of order, no substitute measures were taken for the direction of traffic at this intersection.
Defendant James Garcia, an employee of the Cecchini Trucking Company, was driving a truck and trailer loaded with crates of produce in an easterly direction within the inner of the two eastbound lanes of traffic on East Charter Way. He knew that the traffic signals were not working. As he approached this intersection he was three boys at the northeast corner, and shortly after seeing them, observed that two of them had started to go southerly across East Charter Way in the marked pedestrian crosswalk immediately to the east of the intersection. He also saw plaintiff, William Goodman follow the other two boys into the pedestrian lane. Upon observing this, he brought his truck and trailer to a complete stop about twelve feet west of the westerly crosswalk. At this point the three boys were continuing in a southerly direction along the easterly crosswalk. When he started into the intersection the two boys were about halfway across the street with William Goodman immediately behind. When he was about 20 feet from the easterly crosswalk, he saw plaintiff, William Goodman, walk in front of his truck, glance at it for a second and then continue on for five or six steps. At that point William Goodman was struck by a Ford automobile driven by defendant Raposa.
Raposa was also driving easterly on East Charter Way. He was in the outer of the two eastbound traffic lanes. He testified that when he was a block west of the intersection he saw and knew that the traffic lights were not working, and when he had approached within a half block he observed that the traffic standard on the southeast corner had been taken down, and that all the lights were turned off; that at the time he entered the intersection and until the time of the collision, the Garcia truck was on his left side; that it obstructed his view to his left, and that the first time he saw William Goodman was when he was right there 'in the center of my car.' At the time his speed was between 25 and 30 miles per hour.
On these facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Civalier by Civalier v. Estate of Trancucci
...of the regulatory device did not make the street dangerous to traffic, no liability was imposed. Cf. Goodman v Raposa, [ (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 830, 312 P.2d 65] supra (fact that traffic light not working did not furnish basis of liability, where vehicles on main boulevard were protected fro......
-
McCuistion v. Cnty. of Tulare
... ... by Veh. Code § 21800; such condition is not dangerous as ... a matter of law]; Goodman v. Raposa (1957) 151 ... Cal.App.2d 830.) ... Plaintiffs ... argue that by establishing a two-way stop at the ... ...
-
Chowdhury v. City of Los Angeles
...Cal.App.2d 321, 325, 273 P.2d 941; Hoel v. City of Los Angeles (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 295, 299, 288 P.2d 989; Goodman v. Raposa (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 830, 832, 834-835, 312 P.2d 65. See also Mathews v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 116, 145 Cal.Rptr......
-
Dudum v. City of San Mateo
...stop sign (Perry v. City of Santa Monica, 130 Cal.App.2d 370, 279 P.2d 92), or to direct traffic at an intersection (Goodman v. Raposa, 151 Cal.App.2d 830, 835, 312 P.2d 65). But once a stop sign is installed, the city's failure to maintain it properly (in the absence of determination that ......