James v. American Buslines
| Decision Date | 23 May 1952 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | JAMES v. AMERICAN BUSLINES. Civ. 18753. |
Thomas L. Berkley, Clinton W. White and Charles E. Wilson, all of Berkeley, and
High Wesley Goodwin, Fresno, for appellant.
McBain & Morgan, Los Angeles, for respondent.
From a judgment in favor of defendant after trial before a jury in an action to recover damages for injuries resulting from the alleged negligence of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (respondent) (In re Estate of Isenberg, 63 Cal.App.2d 214, 215, 217, 146 P.2d 424), the record discloses:
Plaintiff was a passenger on defendant's bus which was traveling in the State of New Mexico about 45 miles east of the city of Lordsburg on September 10, 1949. At the scene of the hereinafter described accident the road was a narrow two lane highway running in a general easterly and westerly direction. The hard surfaced portion of it was oil top, 18 to 20 feet wide, with a white line painted in the middle. On each side of the hard surfaced roadway was a shoulder 3 feet wide which was sloppy and muddy at the time.
Just before dawn, approximately 6:25 a. m., it was raining and the highway was slick and the sky was heavily overcast so the driver of the bus could not see beyond the beam of his headlights which projected 125 to 150 feet ahead of the bus. Lights on the bus were all in operation as were the windshield wipers.
The bus was traveling about 45 miles per hour when the bus driver saw within the range of his headlights an oncoming passenger car which had no lights lit, was black in color and was traveling between 40 and 70 miles per hour astraddle the center line of the highway. This car did not thereafter swerve either to the left or to the right and was still traveling astraddle the center line at the time it met and passed the bus.
When the driver first saw the oncoming car the bus was traveling on its own side of the road, the left side of the bus being about one foot south of the center line and the right side being about one foot north of the shoulder edge of the highway. Upon seeing the oncoming car, the bus driver immediately took his foot off the accelerator and swerved to the right, slowing the bus to about 30 miles per hour thus avoiding a collision with the west bound car. When the bus swerved to the right the wheels on the right side went off the pavement onto the soft shoulder and the driver lost control of the vehicle. The bus continued with two wheels off the pavement for about 150 to 200 feet and came back onto the pavement, went across to the north side of the road, turned completely around and when practically at a standstill turned over on its right side.
At the time the right wheels of the bus went onto the soft shoulder, the driver, seeking to retain control, attempted to pull the bus back onto the highway. In such attempt he did not apply his brakes but kept trying to get back onto the pavement by applying pressure to the accelerator. He testified he thought it was necessary for the safety of his passengers that he pull off the road, and also that it was the safest thing to do to try to pull the bus back onto the road in the manner above described.
Question: Was there substantial evidence to sustain the implied finding of the jury that the accident was not caused by defendant's negligence?
Yes. The following rules are applicable:
1. It is only where there is no substantial conflict as to the facts, and from the facts reasonable persons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrera v. De La Torre
...Cal.2d 682, 268 P.2d 1041, and cases there cited; Talbert v. Ostergaard, supra, 129 Cal.App.2d 222, 276 P.2d 880; James v. American Buslines, 111 Cal.App.2d 273, 244 P.2d 503. As said in Dierman v. Providence Hospital, supra, 31 Cal.2d 290, 295, 188 P.2d 12, 14: 'This is not to say that a d......
-
Villa v. Shaffer
...San Mateo Electric Railway Co., 147 Cal. 178, 81 P. 531.) It is only necessary for defendants to explain the act, James v. American Buslines, 111 Cal.App.2d 273, 244 P.2d 503, and after the explanation the burden remains in the plaintiff. (Kahn v. Triest-Rosenberg Cap Company, 139 Cal. 340,......
-
Bischoff v. Newby's Tire Service, 17685
... ... 669. See also Fry v. Sheedy, 143 ... Cal.App.2d 615, 619, 300 P.2d 242; and James v. American Buslines, 111 Cal.App.2d 273, 276, 244 P.2d 503 ... Defendants argue ... ...
-
Price v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...prove his case by a preponderance of evidence. See Haun v. Tally, [ante, 40 Cal.App. 585] 181 P. 81.' And in James v. American Buslines, 111 Cal.App.2d 273, 276, 244 P.2d 503, 505, it is 'In an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while a passenger in defendant's bus, it is t......