Middleton v. Post Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1951 |
| Citation | 235 P.2d 855,106 Cal.App.2d 703 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MIDDLETON et ux. v. POST TRANSP. CO. et al. Civ. 18502. |
Swaffield, Madden & McCarry, Long Beach, for appellants.
Harry E. Sackett, Los Angeles, Jennings & Belcher and Louis E. Kearney, all of Los Angeles, of counsel, for respondents.
From a judgment in favor of defendants after trial before a jury in an action to recover damages resulting from a collision of automobiles, plaintiffs appeal.
The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to defendants (respondents) the essential facts are:
About 11:00 p. m., December 7, 1949, plaintiffs, husband and wife, retired in their apartment at the Chace Motel on the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Pine Avenue in Long Beach. Pacific Coast Highway runs in a general easterly and westerly direction and is 76 feet wide, while Pine Avenue is 50 feet wide and runs in a general southerly and northerly direction.
Immediately after retiring plaintiffs fell asleep and were not awakened until the hereinafter described accident occurred. About 1:30 a.m., December 8, 1949, defendant Ogle was driving a tractor and trailer (owned by the corporate defendant) in a westerly direction on Pacific Coast Highway just east of its intersection with Pine Avenue at a speed of about 25 miles per hour. When his vehicle was 15 to 20 feet into the intersection he noticed an automobile coming from his left and driving north on Pine Avenue. This automobile was driving at a high rate of speed, and the driver was intoxicated. The car struck the left rear dual wheels of defendant's tractor with such force as to flatten out the car, killing the driver thereof and rendering defendant Ogle unconscious. Thereafter the truck crashed into the motel apartment in which plaintiffs were sleeping causing them serious injuries.
After a jury trial judgment was rendered in favor of defendants.
Questions: First: Did the trial court err, after giving an instruction on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and stating that it was applicable to the facts of the case, in giving the jury the following instruction?
'The mere fact that an accident happened, considered alone, does not support an inference that some party, or any party, to this accident was negligent.'
No. The fact that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in an action for personal injury does not deprive a defendant of his right to an instruction that the mere fact of injury is no evidence of his negligence or liability. (Palmer v. Hygrade Water & Soda Co., 236 Mo.App. 247, 151 S.W.2d 548, 550 et seq. [3-5]; cf. O'Neill v. City & County of San Francisco, 209 Cal. 418, 420, 287 P. 449; Seedborg v. Lakewood Gardens Ass'n, Cal.App., 233 P.2d 943.)
The complained of instruction is a correct statement of law; such instruction called the attention of the jury to the rule of law that the mere happening of an accident, that is, separated from everything else shown by the evidence, will not support an inference of negligence on the part of defendant. This instruction does not conflict with the res ipsa loquitur instruction, for such instruction does not become applicable to a case unless several factors concur in addition to the mere happening of the accident: (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, Local 1304, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO
...is substantially covered by the instructions given. (Luis v. Cavin, 88 Cal.App.2d 107, 115, 198 P.2d 563; Middleton v. Post Transportation Co., 106 Cal.App.2d 703, 706, 235 P.2d 855.) Instructions Nos. 39 to 43 are not only repetitive of the instructions on preponderance of evidence and pro......
-
Getas v. Hook
...have held it not erroneous to give the instruction with a conditional res ipsa loquitur instruction. (Middleton v. Post Transportation Co. (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 703, 705, 235 P.2d 855, cited with approval in Barrera v. De La Torre, supra, 48 Cal.2d 166, 171, 308 P.2d 724; and see Rubenstein......
-
Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, Local 1304, United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO
...is substantially covered by the instructions given. (Luis v. Cavin, 88 Cal.App.2d 107, 115, 198 P.2d 563; Middleton v. Post Transportation Co., 106 Cal.App.2d 703, 706, 235 P.2d 855.) Instructions Nos. 39 to 43 are not only repetitive of the instructions on preponderance of evidence and pro......
-
Rayner v. Ramirez
...that any party to this accident was negligent." Barrera v. De La Torre, 48 Cal.2d 166, 308 P.2d 724, 727; Middleton v. Post Transportation Company, 106 Cal.App.2d 703, 235 P.2d 855. Likewise, the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury and inst......