Lawson v. Lester

• Decision Date: 07 April 1961
• Citation: 12 Cal.Rptr. 368,191 Cal.App.2d 34
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: James A. LAWSON, Administrator of the Estate of Effie May Lawson, deceased, substituted in the place and stead of Effie Lawson, deceased, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard P. LESTER, Slakey Brothers, Inc., a corporation, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 10074.

Page 368

12 Cal.Rptr. 368

191 Cal.App.2d 34

James A. LAWSON, Administrator of the Estate of Effie May Lawson, deceased, substituted in the place and stead of Effie Lawson, deceased, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard P. LESTER, Slakey Brothers, Inc., a corporation, Defendants and Appellants.

Civ. 10074.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

April 7, 1961.

Rehearing Denied May 4, 1961.

Hearing Denied May 31, 1961.

Chinello & Chinello, Fresno, for appellants.

C. Way Robinson, Merced, for respondent.

WARNE, Justice pro tem.

This is an appeal from a money judgment is a personal injury action.

The respondent sustained injuries when the station wagon in which she was riding was struck from the rear by a two-ton truck driven by the appellant Lester. Prior to the accident both vehicles were proceeding in an easterly direction on State Route 140 in Merced County. The accident occurred at 1:30 on the afternoon of a clear day. The road was dry and the truck was in good mechanical condition. The truck had been traveling at a rate of speed between 45 and 50 miles an hour. Appellant Lester first observed the station wagon in which respondent was riding a quarter of a mile ahead. The station wagon's speed was slower and the truck was slowly gaining on it. Appellant Lester testified that when he approached to within 250 feet of the rear of the station wagon he observed that it was slowing down and that he saw its blinker signals were indicating a left turn. As the station wagon entered the intersection of Highway 140 and Applegate Road it slowed down almost to a stop. Mr. Lester testified that at that time the distance between the vehicles had recreased to approximately 100 feet. Appellant also slowed down, but did not apply his brakes until the station wagon was practically through the intersection. Then as the station wagon, with its left turn blinker signal still working, started to turn to enter the open area in front of the Machado store at the northeast corner of the intersection, i. e., to the left, it was struck on the right rear end by the truck. The collision occurred 40 feet east of the intersection. Further, the appellant Lester was familiar with the road and the intersection and knew of the location of the store. There are no curbs or any sort of barriers separating the road, either on Applegate Road or Highway 140. The graveled shoulders of the road merge right into the graveled area in front of the store. There is no evidence nor any claim that the station wagon came to a sudden stop and thus caused the accident, nor is there any claim that the accident was caused by the station wagon being turned into the path of the appellant's truck. These facts stand undisputed. Hence, it appears that the accident was solely due to the appellant Lester's negligence in failing to heed the obvious signal and declaration of the driver of the station wagon that he intended to make a left turn.

'The question of negligence is one of fact for the jury where the evidence is conflicting or where, although the evidence is without conflict, different inferences may reasonably be drawn from it.' Bauer v. Davis, 43 Cal.App.2d 764, 769, 111 P.2d 715, 718, citing Anderson v. Los Angeles Transfer Co., 170 Cal. 66, 148 P. 212. Here there is no conflict in the evidence and the facts are such that but one legitimate inference can be drawn...