Rose v. Orange County, 3872
| Decision Date | 17 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 3872,3872 |
| Citation | 211 P.2d 45,94 Cal.App.2d 688 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ROSE v. ORANGE COUNTY. Civ. |
Forgy, Reinhaus & Forgy, Santa Ana, for appellant.
Joseph Scott, Los Angeles, Drumm & Drumm, Santa Ana, J. Howard Ziemann, John R. Kent, Los Angeles, for respondent.
In this action for damages, arising from an automobile accident, the defendant county appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and also from an order denying its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury.
The accident happened in the community of Westminster at the 'T' intersection of 13th Street, a county road, with Huntington Beach Boulevard, a through state highway. The highway runs north and south, having an 18-foot concrete pavement with a white line in the center, and oiled shoulders on either side. An open ditch runs along the east side of this highway. The evidence is conflicting as to the distance between the east edge of the pavement and the begining of the slope of the ditch. Two witnesses for the respondent testified that this distance was about a foot while a state highway patrolman testified that it was approximately 10 feet. 13th Street comes in from the west, dead-ending there, and does not cross the highway or the ditch. It is approximately 30 feet wide and has an oiled surface. For years a stop sign had stood on 13th Street where it entered the highway. Two witnesses testified that this stop sign had been laying on the ground for about a week before the accident, while a highway patrolman, who arrived thirty-five minutes after the accident occurred, testified that it was then in place.
The respondent and her husband lived about a mile from this intersection, in the house in which he was born. Shortly before 7:00 o'clock on the evening of December 14, 1946, they left home to go to Santa Ana, the husband driving the automobile. Respondent and her husband occupied the front seat and two young men sat in the rear seat. It was an extremely foggy night and very difficult to see even fifteen feet ahead of the automobile. However, they successfully turned five corners within about a mile, and then stopped to pick up a young lady who lived on 13th Street, about two blocks west of this intersection. She got into the rear seat of the automobile and respondent's husband drove on easterly toward this intersection. He testified that he traveled ten to fifteen miles per hour; that 'We were all trying to peek out and see where we were at'; that he did not see any stop sign at the entrance to the highway although he knew that there had been one there as long as he could remember; that he did not see any white lines on the pavement; and that 'I knew we were coming close to Huntington Beach Boulevard, but I didn't have any warning.' He drove on across the highway and into the drainage ditch east of the highway, his wife being thrown against the windshield and receiving the injuries in question.
The appellant first contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict since there is no evidence of any dangerous or defective condition on 13th Street itself, within the meaning of the Public Liability Act, St.1923, p. 675, § 2, under which this action was brought. It is argued that the evidence discloses no ditch or other hazardous condition within the actual confines of 13th Street; that any dangerous condition appeared only after a traveler had left 13th Street and entered the state highway; that any duty with respect to remedying such a condition or giving warning thereof rested on the state of California; that the duty of the county did not extend beyond the boundaries of 13th Street; and that the respondent county may not be held responsible for a dangerous and defective condition which thus existed on a situation involve questions of fact, but it is rather well established that such a county or public agency has a duty to warn persons lawfully using its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Civalier by Civalier v. Estate of Trancucci
...both directions); Irvin v Padelford (1954) 127 CA2d 135, 273 P2d 539 (stop sign temporarily removed during repairs); Rose v County of Orange (1949) 94 CA2d 688, 211 P2d 45 (stop sign knocked down and not replaced). Of course, if the malfunctioning of the regulatory device did not make the s......
-
Schauf v. Southern California Edison Co.
...v. City of San Mateo, supra, 167 Cal.App.2d 593, 334 P.2d 968; Bady v. Detwiler, 127 Cal.App.2d 321, 273 P.2d 941; Rose v. County of Orange, 94 Cal.App.2d 688, 211 P.2d 45; Silva v. County of Fresno, 63 Cal.App.2d 253, 146 P.2d 520; Ervin v. City of Los Angeles, 117 Cal.App.2d 303, 256 P.2d......
-
Hedayatzadeh v. City of Del Mar
...public property because they obstructed motorists’ view of approaching vehicles on the county highway]; see also Rose v. Orange County (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 688, 691, 211 P.2d 45 [a county could be liable for a dangerous unprotected ditch along a state road that intersected a state road when......
-
Bady v. Detwiler
...Perry v. City of San Diego, 80 Cal.App.2d 166, 181 P.2d 98; a boulevard stop sign which had been down for a week, Rose v. County of Orange, 94 Cal.App.2d 688, 211 P.2d 45; a large pool of water making the sidewalk area and half of the street impractical for pedestrian use, Jones v. City of ......