Turkovich v. Rowland
| Decision Date | 04 September 1951 |
| Citation | 235 P.2d 123,106 Cal.App.2d 445 |
| Parties | TURKOVICH v. ROWLAND et al. Civ. 18259. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Nicholas Ferrara, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Parker, Stanbury, Reese & McGee and R. S. Harrington, Los Angeles, for respondents.
Plaintiff, Anna Turkovich, was riding with two other persons in the single seat of a coupe. She was in the middle of the seat between a lady driver, Olga Petrovich, and a gentleman on her right. The coupe was going easterly along Culver Boulevard to its intersection with Main Street in Culver City, in Los Angeles County. It was about 7:30 p. m., and dark at the time.
About 25 to 30 feet west of the pedestrian crossing at the intersection, the driver of the coupe made a sudden stop, and defendant's car following ran into it.
The driver of that car, one of defendants, testified that he had been driving about 18 to 20 feet behind the coupe for a city block; that he was going 20 to 25 miles an hour; that he saw no arm signal given; that he applied his brakes when he saw the stoplight on the coupe light up; but that the coupe stopped so quickly that he was unable to check the momentum of his vehicle in time to avoid the collision.
After the accident this witness went forward opposite the driver's window of the coupe, and found the door locked and the glass window rolled up. Plaintiff makes no contention that an arm signal was given.
Plaintiff was thrown forward to the front of the coupe and then backward against the cushion on the back of the seat. She was taken to the Santa Monica hospital in an ambulance, examined there by an intern, and discharged as 'ambulatory'. She went home and went to bed and next morning called her doctor. He pronounced her injury a mild form of concussion, gave her sedative medicine, and told her to stay in bed.
About a week later plaintiff caught her hand in the wringer of a washing machine. The injuries thus suffered were painful and severe, and required treatment for several weeks, and a number of calls to her doctor's office.
Plaintiff testified that she lost consciousness just before she caught her hand in the wringer, and her doctor testified that such loss of consciousness could have been from the injuries received in the accident.
The case was tried by a jury, whose verdict was for defendants. From the judgment which followed plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff argues that the negligence of the driver of the following car was in some degree at least the proximate cause of the accident; that the negligence of the driver of the coupe was not imputable to plaintiff; also that it was error for the trial court to give and to refuse certain jury instructions.
It was the province of the jury to determine the proximate cause of the accident. See cases collected in 19 Cal.Jur. 832. When an automobile following another one runs into the car in front negligence is a question of fact and not of law. Wohlenberg v. Malcewicz, 56...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beck v. Kessler
...supra, 56 Cal.App.2d 508, 513, 133 P.2d 12; Elford v. Hiltabrand, supra, 63 Cal.App.2d 65, 74, 146 P.2d 510; Turkovich v. Rowland (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 445, 448, 235 P.2d 123; Lowenthal v. Mortimer (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 636, 638-639, 270 P.2d 942; Karageozian v. Bost (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 8......
-
Goncalves v. Los Banos Min. Co.
...v. city of Los Angeles, 104 Cal.App.2d 212, 231 P.2d 167; Agovino v. Kunze, 181 Cal.App.2d 591, 5 Cal.Rptr. 534; Turkovich v. Rowland, 106 Cal.App.2d 445, 235 P.2d 123; Lowenthal v. Mortimer, 125 Cal.App.2d 636, 270 P.2d 942; O'Hey v. Matson Navigation Co., 135 Cal.App.2d 819, 288 P.2d 81; ......
-
Kralyevich v. Magrini
...when one motor vehicle runs into the rear of another vehicle, negligence is a question of fact and not of law. Turkovich v. Rowland, 106 Cal.App.2d 445, 447, 235 P.2d 123; Wohlenberg v. Malcewicz, 56 Cal.App.2d 508, 133 P.2d 12. It is also the province of the jury to determine the proximate......
-
Burger v. Burger
...the instruction is confusing. The instruction was correct. Clinkscales v. Carver, 22 Cal.2d 72, 75, 136 P.2d 777; Turkovich v. Rowland, 106 Cal.App.2d 445, 448, 235 P.2d 123; Taylor v. Sims, 72 Cal.App.2d 60, 63, 164 P.2d 17; B.A.J.I. 149-A. In the absence of a showing that appellant was ju......