Harris v. De La Chapelle
Decision Date | 24 February 1976 |
Citation | 55 Cal.App.3d 644,127 Cal.Rptr. 695 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Elaine HARRIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Henri DE LA CHAPELLE et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 45783. |
William Jerome Pollack, Beverly Hills, for plaintiff and appellant.
Herbert H. Hiestand, Jr., Los Angeles, for Edna A. Harrison, defendant and respondent.
Haight, Lyon, Smith & Dickson, by Roy G. Weatherup, Los Angeles, for Harry F. and Grace C. Worthington, defendants and respondents.
Elaine Harris, appellant herein, is the plaintiff in an action for damage suffered as a result of personal injuries filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County originally embracing 24 defendants. Appellant's brief states that the action has been settled or dismissed as to 17 of the original defendants. Respondents Harry F. and Grace C. Worthington (Worthington) and Edna Harrison are 3 of the remaining 7 defendants; the other defendants are not before this court. Each of the 3 respondents on their respective motions obtained a summary judgment in their favor. This appeal treats only appellant's appeal from the said summary judgments.
The motions were based upon declarations and depositions which show the following facts:
Sixth Street runs generally east and west in the City of Los Angeles. It is intersected at right angles by Bronson Avenue which runs north and south. Between Fifth and Sixth Streets Bronson Avenue is about 25 feet wide and has a length of about 540 feet. Respondents are property owners on Bronson Avenue between Fifth and Sixth Streets. The property of each owner fronts on the east side of Bronson facing west but each such owner owns a strip of land directly across the street from their homes on the west side of Bronson Avenue (Bronson West) which has a shallow depth but which is exactly the same width as that of the lot upon which their respective houses are constructed.
Each of the owners of property on Bronson Avenue maintains his own section of the hedge maintained on Bronson West between Fifth and Sixth Streets. The hedge is 9 to 10 feet high and extends into the street approximately six feet. (See Exh. A to this opinion.)
A stop sign for traffic on Bronson is maintained at the corner of Sixth Street and Bronson. The sign is 9 feet high and 10 feet north of the intersection. It is partially surrounded by hedge.
At about 2 o'clock in the morning of January 23, 1972, appellant was driving east on Sixth Street. At the same time defendant Sunday was operating his automobile south on Bronson Avenue. It was dark and Sunday was unfamiliar with Bronson Avenue. Since there were cars parked on the east side of Bronson, the side opposite the hedge, Sunday was driving his car in the middle of the street, but close to the west curb where the hedge was located.
Because of the overhang into the street of the entire 500-foot hedge on Bronson, Sunday was not able to and failed to timely see the stop sign or the intersection and as a result he did not make a stop and ran into appellant's car which had just entered the intersection.
Appellant sued Sunday, the City of Los Angeles, and all of the owners of property on Bronson Avenue between Fifth and Sixth Streets.
In Pittman v. Pedro Petroleum Corp. (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 859, 862, 117 Cal.Rptr. 220, 221, the court stated:
The trial court concluded from declarations, depositions, and demonstrable facts before it, that none, of the respondents here involved owned any duty to appellant; and, Arguendo, if there were a duty, the breach thereof could not have been the proximate cause of the accident. We agree.
In Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 734, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 76, 441 P.2d 912, 916, the court stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Becker v. IRM Corp.
...Code of Civil Procedure is a " ' "drastic procedure to be used sparingly and with circumspection." ...' " (Harris v. De La Chapelle (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 644, 647, 127 Cal.Rptr. 695.) A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing that the action is without merit; a f......
-
Sprecher v. Adamson Companies
...between artificial and natural conditions on land. 5 (Coates v. Chinn (1958) 51 Cal.2d 304, 332 P.2d 289; Harris v. De La Chapelle (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 644, 127 Cal.Rptr. 695; Wisher v. Fowler (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 225, 86 Cal.Rptr. 582; Potter v. Empress Theatre Co. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 4, 2......
-
Becker v. Irm Corp.
...Code of Civil Procedure is a " ' "drastic procedure to be used sparingly and with circumspection." ...' " (Harris v. De La Chapelle (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 644, 647, 127 Cal.Rptr. 695, disapproved on another point in Sprecher v. Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal.3d 358, 372, fn. 9, 178 Cal.Rptr.......
-
Ransom v. City of Garden City
...of someone who steals that vehicle. The question of whether a legal duty exists is a question of law. (Harris v. De La Chapelle (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 644, 647, 127 Cal.Rptr. 95.) A duty to protect third persons from unreasonable risk of injury may include a duty to protect against the miscon......