Gruss v. Coast Transport, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 September 1957 |
| Citation | 154 Cal.App.2d 85,315 P.2d 339 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Francis J. GRUSS and Martha G. Gruss, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COAST TRANSPORT, Inc., John C. Ceciliani, et al., Defendants, Coast Transport, Inc., and John C. Ceciliani, Respondents. Irene HOLMES and Ciaude L. Holmes, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COAST TRANSPORT, Inc., John C. Ceciliani, et al., Defendants, Coast Transport, Inc., and John C. Ceciliani, Respondents. Civ. 9028. |
Jacobs, Blanckenburg & May and Healy & Martin, San Francisco, for appellants Cruss.
Chargin & Briscoe, Stockton, and William H. Herbert, Fairfield, for appellants Holmes.
Theodore Tamba, San Francisco, for respondents.
This appeal presents the record of a consolidated trial of two separate suits against the same defendants. Plaintiffs Irene Holmes and Claude L. Holmes brought action for injury and property damage arising out of a collision between an automobile driven by Claude L. Holmes with a Studebaker automobile driven by David Oliver Hayes with the consent of its owner Robert Holloway. Francis and Martha Gruss, riding in the Holmes car, brought their action to recover for injuries suffered by them in the same collision. The point of collision of the two cars was partly on the shoulder and partly on the paved portion of the south half of the road known as the Sears Point cut-off in Solano County at a point where the road runs east and west. The Chevrolet was being driven east. The Studebaker was being driven west. The collision was approximately head-on. A Hudson car was being driven west by Clifford Dodson. That car had been followed for a mile or more by a truck and trailer driven by John Ceciliani and owned by Coast Transport, Inc. They were defendants in both actions. The truck and trailer was followed by the Studebaker car. Ceciliani undertook to pass the Hudson. He testified that he observed the Chevrolet approaching, but concluded that he could safely and legally execute a passing maneuver. It is undisputed that he pulled into the south lane for that purpose. As to what happened immediately thereafter the evidence is in conflict. For the purpose of this appeal it is only necessary to state in summary the evidence presented.
There was evidence that Ceciliani was to execute the passing maneuver in accordance with the applicable statute (section 530, Vehicle Code); that before he passed the Hudson and returned to his proper side of the center line he forced the Chevrolet out of the south lane and onto the shoulder to avoid a collision with his truck; that he interfered with the operation of the Hudson by so cutting in as to compel the driver of the Hudson to severely apply his brakes, at the same time turning out onto the right shoulder to avoid being hit by the truck; that the Hudson went out of control as it was swung to the shoulder and that it came back into the north lane as across the center line with suddenly reduced speed; that this compelled the driver of the Studebaker, in order to avoid a collision with the Hudson, to attempt to go around the Hudson by driving his car out on the south shoulder were it met the Chevrolet. On the other hand there was testimony that the driver of the truck would have completed his passing maneuver and returned to his proper side of the road more than 100 feet ahead of the approaching Chevrolet, all as required by the statute, and without interfering with either the approaching car or the one being passed, except for the action of the driver of the Hudson in speeding up in violation of law and holding the truck out in the south lane, thus forcing its driver, to avoid collision with the oncoming Chevrolet, to cut in on the Hudson in attempting to regain the north side of the road. It was undisputed that there was no collision between the truck and the Hudson.
Respondents Ceciliani and Coast Transport, Inc., request, and the court gave, an instruction reading as follows:
'If you find from the evidence that, at and before the time the defendant Ceceliani started to turn to the left side of the road and pass and overtake the Hudson automobile, the said left side of the roadway was clearly visible and free from oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead that the said defendant Ceceliani, as a reasonably prudent person, reasonably concluded that such overtaking and passing could be completed without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction, or said Hudson automobile, and that he could, under the circumstances, pass and overtake said Hudson automobile and return to the right-hand side of the roadway before coming within a hundred feet of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction; and if you further find that at said time and place he operated his vehicle as an ordinary careful and prudent person under the circumstances, then, if you so find, I instruct you that the defendant John C. Ceceliani was not negligent, and your verdict must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. Plough, Inc.
...only by evidence establishing a justification or excuse for the statutory violation. (Evid.Code, § 669; see Gruss v. Coast Transport, Inc. (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 85, 88, 315 P.2d 339; Lotta v. City of Oakland (1944) 67 Cal.App.2d 411, 413, 154 P.2d Less common is the use of a statutory stand......
-
Alarid v. Vanier
...Cal.2d 474, 479, 218 P.2d 531, 534; Satterlee v. Orange Glenn School Dist., 29 Cal.2d 581, 589, 177 P.2d 279; Gruss v. Coast Transport, Inc., 154 Cal.App.2d 85, 87-90, 315 P.2d 339; Miller v. Jensen, 137 Cal.App.2d 251, 256-257, 290 P.2d 52; Garcia v. Webb, 131 Cal.App.2d 448, 450-451, 280 ......
-
Mack v. Valley Motor Lines, Inc.
...former Vehicle Code, §§ 526, 529, 531, 543, 544 and 551 4: Neilsen v. Uyechi, 172 Cal.App.2d 508, 342 P.2d 329; Gruss v. Coast Transport, Inc., 154 Cal.App.2d 85, 315 P.2d 339; Gunter v. Claggett, 65 Cal.App.2d 636, 151 P.2d 271; Pierce v. Black, 131 Cal.App.2d 521, 280 P.2d 913; Smith v. H......
-
Shoemaker v. State
...presumption of negligence attaching to the violation in question was rebutted. There is nothing in the case of Gruss v. Coast Transport, Inc., 154 Cal.App.2d 85, 315 P.2d 339, cited by the defendant which conflicts with this The issue of proximate cause, under the evidence in this case, als......