Kirk, In re
| Decision Date | 10 April 1962 |
| Citation | 20 Cal.Rptr. 787,202 Cal.App.2d 288 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In the Matter of Karen Lynne KIRK, A Person under the age of 21 years. Karen Lynne Kirk, Appellant. Civ. 26005. |
John H. Kirk, Jr., Claremont, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and George W. Kell, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On January 26, 1961, Karen Lynne Kirk, 17 years old, was cited for failure to yield the right of way in making a left turn in violation of section 21801, subdivision (a) of the Vehicle Code. This citation required her appearance in the traffic division of the juvenile court where she denied having violated the law.
On May 15, 1961, a petition was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court in which the facts of the motor vehicle violation were pleaded. The petition requested that Karen be declared a ward of the juvenile court and that she be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Court Law. A hearing was held on June 7, 1961, after which the court found the allegations of the petition to be true and sustained the petition. The case was continued six months to the nonappearance calendar to determine whether or not at that time the petition should be dismissed. 1
On January 26, 1961. Karen was driving eastbound on Holt Boulevard in Pomona, California, and had entered the left turn lane at the intersection of Garey Avenue. As she waited to make the turn two vehicles were approaching in two westbound lanes of Holt Boulevard. Karen started to move her vehicle forward when the light turned green for Holt Boulevard traffic. Of the two approaching vehicles the one closest to the curb was approximately two blocks away and the one in the lane closest to the center of the street was about one block away. Karen moved slowly into the intersection. She crossed over the double white line dividing east and westbound traffic and then stopped in the first lane of westbound traffic. The westbound driver in the first lane then came to a complete stop and motioned for her to proceed to make her left turn. Karen slowly moved ahead into the next lane. When she saw that the car in the lane closest to the curb was not stopping she brought her vehicle to a stop in that lane. The driver of that vehicle first saw Karen's car in the left turn lane before arriving at the intersection; he was traveling about 25 miles an hour; the signal was green for him at the time he entered the intersection; it had turned green about 200 feet before he arrived at the intersection. The second time he noticed Karen's vehicle was when it had crossed into his lane, as it was hidden from his view by the vehicle to his left which had stopped. Being unable to stop, he struck Karen's vehicle. It was raining at the time.
Karen's two principal contentions are that: (1) the trial court misconstrued the term 'hazard' as used in Vehicle Code section 21801, subdivision (a); and (2) a finding by a superior court sitting as a juvenile court that a minor committed a violation of the Vehicle Code is a judgment or decree as that term is used in the Welfare and Institutions Code, section 800, from which an appeal can be taken.
The information charged that upon turning left at the particular intersection Karen failed to yield the right of way to a vehicle which had approached or was approaching the intersection from the opposite direction and was so close as to constitute an immediate hazard at any time during the turning movement in violation of Vehicle Code section 21801, subdivision (a). Since its amendment in 1957, this section reads in part: '(a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has approached or is approaching the intersection from the opposite direction and which is so close as to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement.' (Emphasis added.)
The 1957 amendments made no change in subdivision (b) of the section. Before 1957, subdivision (a) read: 'The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.' (We have added emphasis to the words omitted in the 1957 version.)
We believe that by the addition in 1957 of the italicized words above, 'at any time during the turning movement,' the Legislature intended to impose further restrictions upon the operator of a vehicle making a left turn at an intersection. Prior to the amendment he was only required to yield to vehicles approaching from the opposite direction within the intersection or vehicles so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard and after having done so his obligation ceased. By the language added in 1957 his obligation to yield was extended to include all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilmer v. Ellington
... ... In his motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendant argued that the complaint failed to state a cause of action under In re Kirk (1962) 202 al.App.2d 288, 291, 20 Cal.Rptr. 787 ( Kirk ) and Sesler v. Ghumman (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 218, 268 Cal. Rptr. 70 ( Sesler ), because, under California law, Cherry had the duty to ascertain whether she could safely turn left across each successive lane of oncoming traffic and, as a ... ...
-
Sesler v. Ghumman
... ... (See Anderson v. Latimer, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 674, 212 Cal.Rptr. 544; Alvarez v. Felker Mfg. Co. (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 987, 998, 41 Cal.Rptr. 514.) ... Appellant's proposed instruction No. 6, quoted above, was grounded squarely on the case of In re Kirk (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 288, 20 Cal.Rptr. 787. In that case, Kirk, driving eastbound, intended to turn left across two westbound lanes. At the intersection, a driver in westbound lane 1 (lane closest to the center) stopped and motioned to Kirk to turn left in front of him. A driver in lane 2 ... ...
-
Havens v. Brown, A118693 (Cal. App. 2/27/2009)
... ... ( Id. at pp. 221-222.) The defendant, who was driving in the third oncoming lane, struck Sesler's motorcycle. ( Id. at p. 222.) Relying on In re Kirk (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 288, Sesler held: Because section 21801, subdivision (a), states that a driver intending to make a left turn must yield the right-of-way to any oncoming vehicles that are close enough to constitute a hazard "`at any time during the turning movement,'" a driver who begins to ... ...
-
Godwin v. LaTurco
... ... However, BAJI instruction 150--D was properly refused, since its language relates to former Vehicle Code, section 551. The superseding Vehicle Code, section 21801 requires a different explanation (In re Kirk, 202 Cal.App.2d 288, 20 Cal.Rptr. 787) now found in BAJI 150--D.1 (revised): 'You may ask yourself the question: When is a vehicle so close as to constitute a hazard during the turning movement? A vehicle is so close as to constitute a hazard to another vehicle headed in the opposite direction ... ...