Howard v. Alta Chevrolet Co.
| Decision Date | 09 May 1952 |
| Citation | 243 P.2d 804,111 Cal.App.2d 38 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | HOWARD v. ALTA CHEVROLET CO. et al. Civ. 4371. |
McFadzean, Crowe & Mitchell, Visalia, for appellants.
O. L. Duemler, Tulare, Francis L. Smee, Visalia, for respondent.
The plaintiff was injured in an automobile collision which occurred at 8:45 A. M. on September 7, 1950, at the intersection of Monson-Sultana Highway and Sierra Way in Tulare County. The Monson-Sultana Highway runs north and south and is a narrow concrete road normally protected by stop signs at all intersecting roads, including Sierra Way. Sierra Way is an oiled road running east and west, and is also protected by stop signs at all intersecting roads from Dinuba, three or four miles to the west, to the intersection in question. At the time in question the stop sign usually maintained at the southwest corner of this intersection, requiring east-bound traffic on Sierra Way to stop, was down and could not be seen.
An unusually dangerous condition existed at the time because this stop sign was not then in place, and because of the surrounding conditions. An irrigation ditch ran north and south to the west of the Monson-Sultana Highway, the east bank of the ditch being 18 feet from the paved road. Coming east on Sierra Way there was 'a gradual rise onto the ditch crossing, and a sudden drop onto this highway here.' On each side of Sierra Way the banks of this ditch were from two and a half to three feet higher than the surface of the Monson-Sultana Highway, and wild oats growing on these banks extended upward for another two and a half to three feet. The result was that the ditch banks and the wild oats concealed the highway from the view of anyone approaching from the west until he got within a few feet of the intersection. On the southeast corner of this intersection there was an orange grove bordered by a row of olive trees. Photographs in evidence disclose that, in the absence of this stop sign, the situation constituted a dangerous trap which would naturally affect traffic on both roads.
The plaintiff was employed by Tulare County as a maintenance man. A superior officer had instructed him and another maintenance man named Root to proceed from Visalia to Dinuba to install some lighting fixtures in the county library there. Root was given a county car and picked the plaintiff up at the court house. Neither of them had been assigned a car for regular use, and neither had ever driven this car before. Root was driving, with the plaintiff on the other front seat. The plaintiff testified that he would have driven the car if he had been told to, or if occasion required. They approached this intersection on their way to Dinuba at a speed of 40 to 45 miles an hour. The plaintiff testified that when they were some 270 feet south of the intersection he looked to his left to see if there was any traffic approaching from the west on Sierra Way; that he saw none; that he then looked to the east trying to see if any traffic was approaching from that direction; that he continued to look to the east until the front end of their car was in the intersection; that because of the trees he was unable to see if any traffic was coming from the east until they were actually in the intersection; that when the front end of their car was almost to the center of the intersection they were going between 25 and 30 miles an hour, and he then heard the squealing of tires on the other car; and that he then saw the other car between 45 and 50 feet away. The plaintiff had been familiar with this intersection for 20 years. He had traveled through this intersection every Sunday for a number of months, and on the preceding Sunday, September 3, he had driven through it proceeding from west to east.
At the same time defendant Moore was approaching this intersection from the west on Sierra Way. He was employed by the other defendants as an automobile salesman, and was driving a demonstrator Chevrolet. He was on his way to see a customer and had been traveling at 45 to 50 miles an hour. He had not been over this road for more than a year, and after leaving Dinuba the road was protected by stop signs at all intersecting roads. The stop sign at the Monson- Sultana Highway was down, and he did not know that he was approaching an intersecting road until he was within 35 or 40 feet of it, as it was hidden from his view by the ditch banks and the vegetation thereon. He reduced his speed somewhat as he crossed the culvert over the ditch, and when he then saw the intersecting road he applied his brakes at first but concluded he would not be able to stop and went on across. The county car in which plaintiff was riding struck the defendants' car on its right side, the point of impact being about four feet east of the center of the intersection.
In this action the plaintiff alleged that he was riding as a guest in this county car and that he suffered injuries proximately caused by the negligence of the defendants. The defendants denied these allegations and, as separate defenses, alleged that the plaintiff and Root were engaged upon a joint venture, their negligence being responsible for the accident; that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; and that the accident was unavoidable insofar as the defendants are concerned.
While the evidence was conflicting in many important respects the court held, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff and Root were not engaged in a joint venture and that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. All instructions asked for by the defendants on the doctrine of imputed liability arising from a joint venture or a joint enterprise were refused, and the court further instructed the jury that even though the driver of the county car was negligent this would not preclude a recovery by the plaintiff if the jury further found that the defendant Moore was also guilty of negligence proximately contributing to this collision. The court also refused to give instructions on contributory negligence requested by the defendants, and further gave the following instruction at the request of the plaintiff:
The court also instructed the jury that the State Compensation Insurance Fund had filed a claim of lien in the amount of $4,000, being its estimated liability under the provisions of the Labor Code. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $14,000. When a motion for a new trial was argued ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Western Pac. R. Co.
...Miller v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., supra; Wagner v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 210 Cal. 526, 528, 292 P. 645; Howard v. Alta Chevrolet Co., 111 Cal.App.2d 38, 44, 243 P.2d 804; Marchetti v. Southern Pac. Co., 204 Cal. 679, 683, 269 P. 529; Queirolo v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 114 Cal.Ap......
-
Rodriquez v. Lompoc Truck Co.
...785.) Whether they exercised ordinary care under the circumstances is a question of fact for the jury. (Howard v. Alta Chevrolet Co., 111 Cal.App.2d 38, 44, 243 P.2d 804.) The duty to protest arose, not simultaneously with the impact, as urged by appellants, but when Sievers turned his disa......
-
Clawson v. Stockton Golf and Country Club
...the evidence, with the inferences therefrom, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant. (Howard v. Alta Chevrolet Co., 111 Cal.App.2d 38, 42, 243 P.2d 804.) With these rules in mind, we turn to the The defendant Stockton Golf and Country Club (hereinafter 'club') had for m......
-
Gadbury v. Ray
...Ry. Co., 89 Cal.App.2d 400, 201 P.2d 48; Lugo v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 128 Cal.App.2d 402, 275 P.2d 605; Howard v. Alta Chevrolet Co., 111 Cal.App.2d 38, 243 P.2d 804; Seefeldt v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 155 Cal.App.2d 853, 318 P.2d 723; Miller v. Peters, 37 Cal.2d 89, 230 P.2d 803......