Lane v. Jaffe
| Decision Date | 27 February 1964 |
| Citation | 37 Cal.Rptr. 171,225 Cal.App.2d 172 |
| Parties | Virgil LANE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sam JAFFE, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 27697. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
L. I. Williams, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.
Spray, Gould & Bowers, Los Angeles, Bernard A. Newell, Jr., Sherman Oaks, for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant Sam Jaffe in an action for damages for personal injuries.
Plaintiff was injured when an automobile, driven by Charles Long, rear-ended Jaffe's parked automobile, causing it to strike plaintiff. Plaintiff instituted this action against both Long and Jaffe, contending that the negligence of each proximately caused his injuries. The jury returned a verdict against Long but exonerated defendant Jaffe. A motion for new trial by plaintiff was denied. He appeals from the judgment and from the order denying the motion. No appeal lies from the order.
Evidence was presented that, on January 29, 1961, at about 8:30 p. m., defendant Jaffe was driving his automobile west on the outbound Ventura freeway in heavy traffic. In addition to Jaffe, the car was occupied by Mrs. Jaffe, their daughter Janice, and Mr. and Mrs. Wolf. Jaffe was traveling at approximately 60 m. p. h. in the 'speed lane,' the extreme left lane of the freeway, when he felt a sinking, thumping condition in the rear of the car. Thinking one of his tires was going flat, he drove into a strip of macadam or asphalt bordering the divider separating eastbound and westbound traffic. This strip was approximately eight feet wide and was bordered on the left by a curbing. There was testimony that Jaffe stopped with his wheels flush against this curbing and that his car was entirely on the black asphalt area. The next freeway turn-off was approximately three-fourths of a mile away.
Jaffe and his guests got out of the car. The lights of the vehicle were left on and the right turn indicator was blinking. There was testimony that a rear tire on the automobile was flat. A white handkerchief was attached to the antenna on the right side of the car. Defendant Jaffe also took a battery box flashlight and placed it in the middle of the asphalt area, approximately 100 to 150 feet behind the automobile, with a blinking red light facing oncoming traffic. After waiting approximately 45 minutes, a motorist stopped, picked up Jaffe, and took him to a nearby service station for help. Archers Garage was subsequently contacted, and the plaintiff, an employee of the garage, drove Jaffe in a tow truck back to his car. Entering the westbound portion of the freeway, they approached the car from the rear. Jaffe could observe his blinking flashlight and blinking taillight when he was approximately 200 feet behind the car. Plaintiff also noticed these lights as they approached the Jaffe automobile. Plaintiff drove onto the asphalt area and parked in front of Jaffe's vehicle. The blinking yellow lights of the tow truck were left operating on top of the cab. Plaintiff got out of the truck and walked between the truck and Jaffe's car.
While plaintiff was standing in front of Jaffe's car an automobile driven by defendant Long struck the rear of Jaffe's car, pushing it into plaintiff and into the rear of the tow truck, causing plaintiff to suffer injuries for which this action was brought.
Two police officers who participated in the investigation of the accident testified that skid marks made by the car driven by Long indicated that its left wheels were on the asphalt area and the right wheels were on the concrete portion of the freeway at the point of impact with the Jaffe automobile. One of the officers stated that the area where defendant Jaffe was parked is used by the police department and by freeway crews for emergency parking.
In asserting that the verdict and judgment should have been against both defendants Jaffe and Long, rather than against Long only, plaintiff questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment in favor of Jaffe. Plaintiff maintains that the evidence shows that, in addition to being negligent under general negligence principles, defendant Jaffe 'was negligent as a matter of law in stopping his car on the freeway in violation of section 22520 of the California Vehicle Code.' It is argued that Jaffe's car was not 'disabled' within the meaning of section 22520 and that 'other courses of action could have been taken' by him to remove his car from the freeway when he first noticed he was having tire trouble. We find these contentions lacking in merit.
Plaintiff's contentions present questions of fact on which conflicting evidence was introduced--evidence from which conflicting reasonable inferences could most certainly be drawn. As stated in Wilson v. Foley, 149 Cal.App.2d 726, 732, 309 P.2d 97, 101:
Section 22520 provides in part: 'No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle upon a freeway * *...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
...many acts prudent to do under the pressure of exigency that would be negligent but for the emergency. (See, e.g., Lane v. Jaffe (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 172, 176, 37 Cal.Rptr. 171 [evidence supports finding that a driver who parked his car with a flat tire on a narrow median was not negligent]......
- People v. Level
-
Willis v. Gordon
...defendants' car was not disabled to such an extent that they were excused from parking on the unpaved shoulder. (Lane v. Jaffe (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 172, 37 Cal.Rptr. 171; Ketchum v. Pattee (1940) 37 Cal.App.2d 122, 98 P.2d 1051; Wilson v. Droege (1930) 110 Cal.App. 578, 294 P. 726.) The op......
-
People v. Hernandez
...whether a vehicle is so disabled that it is impossible to avoid temporarily stopping is a question of fact. (Lane v. Jaffe (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 172, 175, 37 Cal.Rptr. 171.) Here, the court found that due to Hernandez's intoxication, he stopped his truck in the number three lane of a heavil......