Parker v. Womack
Decision Date | 08 May 1951 |
Citation | 230 P.2d 823,37 Cal.2d 116 |
Parties | PARKER v. WOMACK et al. L. A. 21842 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Ball, Hunt and Hart and Clarence S. Hunt, all of Long Beach, for appellants.
Delmar W. Doddridge, Lindsay, for respondent.
Loretta May Parker is suing for damages assertedly caused by the negligent operation of an automobile driven by Carl Womack. At the request of Womack, the jury was instructed that no recovery could be had if the accident were an unavoidable one. After the entry of judgment for Womack, a new trial was granted upon the ground that the instruction was prejudicially erronous. The only question presented upon the appeal from that order concerns the propriety of the instruction.
Mrs. Parker alleged that she was driving her automobile in a northerly direction along Earl Avenue when it collided with one owned by Roy Womack and being driven in a negligent manner, westerly along 25th Street, by Carl Womack. The answer denied all negligence and pleaded that Mrs. Parker had been guilty of contributory negligence.
Each of the streets is 36 feet wide, with no marked center line. There were no traffic signs at the intersection. A house, trees, and other objects on the southeast corner obstructed the view of one traveling from east to west and also that of a northbound driver.
Mrs. Parker was familiar with the intersection. In describing it, she testified that a driver traveling north on Earl Avenue could not see traffic on 25th Street which was approaching from the east until the front of his automobile was approximately one foot north of the south curb line.
According to Mrs. Parker, in approaching 25th Street, when five or six feet from the intersection she decreased the speed of her car to less than 12 miles per hour and shifted into first gear. She looked to the west and, when her car was a foot or more into the intersection, looked to the east. She saw a westbound car approximately 75 or 100 feet from Earl Avenue, but formed no opinion as to its speed. She proceeded into the intersection at approximately the same speed, and did not again observe this vehicle until it was directly in front of her and about one foot away.
Roy womack owned the westbound car, which was being driven with his consent by Carl Womack. Five other young people were in it. Carl testified that he had stopped his car at American Avenue, one block east of Earl Avenue. As he related the details concerning his operation of the automobile, after crossing American Avenue, he increased the speed to approximately 30 miles per hour, reducing it to 20 miles per hour as he reached the intersection where the accident occurred.
Continuing his testimony, Carl said that although his view to the south on Earl Avenue was obstructed, at a point 100 feet east of the intersection he believed he could see traffic within 20 or 30 feet of 25th Street. When 50 feet or less from the intersection, he looked to the south, but saw no automobiles. As he entered the intersection, he looked to the north. He then turned to look to the south, and saw the Parker automobile 'a couple of seconds' before the collision. At this time, the front of his automobile was more than six feet into the intersection and the Parker car was six or seven feet south of the center of 25th Street. He did not apply the brakes.
The impact occurred in the northeast quadrant of the intersection, approximately 16 feet south of the north curb line of 25th Street and 10 1/2 feet west of the east curb line of Earl Avenue. A reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence regarding the damage to the vehicles is that the Parker automobile struck the side of the one driven by Womack at approximately its center.
Passengers in the Womack automobile testified that they were traveling approximately 20 miles per hour when entering the intersection. One of them estimated that when she first saw the Parker automobile, it was traveling at a speed of 20 miles per hour. Both vehicles, the witness said, were then in the intersection and an equal distance from the center of it.
Upon this evidence, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Womacks. Mrs. Parker then moved for a new trial upon nine grounds. However, her points and authorities in support of the motion, and the argument at the hearing of it, were limited to the sole point that the court erred in instructing the jury as follows:
The minute order which records the action of the court in granting the motion does not specify the ground upon which it was made. However, unquestionably the new trial was ordered because the trial judge concluded that he had erred in instructing the jury regarding the rule of unavoidable accident.
Upon the appeal from that order, the Womacks contend that, as the issue of unavoidable accident is present in every case in which the defendant is not guilty as a matter of law, the challenged instruction was proper. Mrs. Parker argues that there is no evidence justifying the giving of the instruction because all of the testimony shows the happening of an accident which would not have occurred except for the negligence of one or both of the drivers.
The terms inevitable or unavoidable accident signify an injury which is caused by something other than the actionable negligence of the parties involved. The terms thus include one caused by vis major, which usually is defined as a greater or superior force, or an irresistible force. 'A loss by viz major is one that results immediately from a natural cause without the intervention of man, and could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care.' Black's Law Dictionary.
An accident which is caused by an absence of exceptional foresight, skill or care which the law does not expect of the ordinarily prudent man is also characterized as inevitable or unavoidable. No redress is afforded for an injury caused by such an accident and the loss must be borne by the one upon whom it falls. 38 Am.Jur. § 6, pp. 648, 649; 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 21, pp. 429-434; 1 Shearman & Redifield on Negligence (rev. ed. 1941), § 32, pp. 86-90. Otherwise stated, and incorporating both factors which relieve one from liability, an accident is inevitable or unavoidable when it is not proximately caused by negligence. As recently defined by this court, '* * * the so-called defense of inevitable accident is nothing more than a denial by defendant of negligence or a contention that his negligence, if any, was not the proximate cause of the injury' Polk v. City of Los Angeles, 26 Cal.2d 519, 542, 543, 159 P.2d 931, 943. It need not be specially pleaded, but is raised by a general denial of negligence. Polk v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 26 Cal.2d at page 542, 159 P.2d 931; Martindale v. Atchison, T. & S. Ry. Co., 89 Cal.App.2d 400, 201 P.2d 48; Stevenson v. Fleming, 47 Cal.App.2d 225, 117 P.2d 717; Schubkegel v. Dunn, 31 Cal.App.2d 312, 87 P.2d 875; Sitkei v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 25 Cal.App.2d 294, 298, 77 P.2d 311; Pearce v. Elbe, 98 Cal.App. 101, 105, 276 P. 389.
Upon a record which includes affirmative evidence tending to prove an accident proximately caused by circumstances beyond the control of an ordinarily prudent person, an instruction upon unavoidable accident has been held proper. Examples of such situations are an unforseen failure of brakes, Merry v. Knudsen Creamery Co., 94 Cal.App.2d 715, 211 P.2d 905; Alward v. Paola, 79 Cal.App.2d 1, 179, P.2d 5; the foot of an automobile driver becoming caught between the brake and clutch pedals, Zaferis v. Bradley, 28 Cal.App.2d 188, 82 P.2d 70; the sudden appearance of a horse upon the highway, Jolley v. Clemens, 28 Cal.App.2d 55, 82 P.2d 51; and a child darting into the street. Creamer v. Cerrato, 1 Cal.App.2d 441, 36 P.2d 1094; Graham v. Consolidated M. T. Co., 112 Cal.App. 648, 297 P. 617.
But the application of the rule allowing the defense of unavoidable accident has not been limited to cases where the defendant relies upon evidence of a proximate cause beyond his control. An instruction stating the law regarding the right of a defendant from exemption from liability because the accident could not have been avoided has also been approved where there was no evidence that it was caused by any factor other than the lack of care. Jolley v. Clemens, 28 Cal.App.2d 55, 72, 73, 82 P.2d 51, 61; cited with approval in Polk v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 26 Cal.2d at page 543, 159 P.2d 931.
Mrs. Parker asserts that the challenged instruction should not have been given because no evidence of any kind was offered by Womack tending to prove that something happened to cause the collision which he could not have avoided by the exercise of reasonable care. The argument erroneously assumes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
...error in law in its reading and application of Biljac. But such a determination is itself scrutinized de novo. (See Parker v. Womack (1951) 37 Cal.2d 116, 123, 230 P.2d 823, overruled on another point by Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co. (1958) 49 Cal.2d 652, 660, 320 P.2d 500; Stoddard v. Rheem (1......
-
Slovick v. James I. Barnes Const. Co.
...give or refuse it. Unavoidable accident merely means one which occurred without negligence on the part of either party. Parker v. Womack, 37 Cal.2d 116, 120, 230 P.2d 823. The instructions given amply covered the fact that defendant is not liable in the absence of negligence on its part. Th......
-
Rayner v. Ramirez
...in the briefs as being one to which objection was made since, at the time of trial, it was proper under the decision in Parker v. Womack, 37 Cal.2d 116, 230 P.2d 823. It is the usual rule that a point is deemed waived and an appellate court will not consider a question not raised at the tri......
-
IM of Atlantic City v. District of Columbia
...borne by the one upon whom it falls.'" Beit v. United States, 260 F.2d 386, 388-389 (5th Cir. 1958), quoting from Parker v. Womack, 37 Cal.2d 116, 120, 230 P.2d 823, 825 (1951). See Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 D.C. 109, Fed.Cas.No.6,565 (1802), affirmed 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 345, 2 L.Ed. 130 (1803); W......