West v. Cruz, 5555

Decision Date08 December 1952
Docket NumberNo. 5555,5555
Citation75 Ariz. 13,251 P.2d 311
PartiesWEST v. CRUZ et al.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Struckmeyer & Struckmeyer, of Phoenix' for appellant.

Bumsted & Linsenmeyer, of Phoenix, for appellees.

LA PRADE, Justice.

The judgment on verdicts here appealed from awarded money damages to Ralph M. Cruz and Adela M. Cruz, his wife, on account of injuries sustained by them growing out of an automobile accident involving the car in which they were guest passengers and the car of the appellant defendant. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were in the trial court, plaintiffs and defendant.

This appeal presents for review the denial of defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs' case; the denial of his motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence; the denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or that a new trial be granted; and, the judgment itself.

The evidence relied on by plaintiffs presents a most unusual fact situation which we will endeavor to briefly reconstruct. Plaintiffs, at the time of the accident, were guest passengers in the car of Mr. Delores R. Amparano, who was driving the car of his father, Mr. Ygnacio M. Amparano. The accident occurred where West McDowell, North 19th Avenue and Grand Avenue intersect each other, in Phoenix, Arizona, and which intersection is commonly called 'Six Points'. At this point West McDowell runs east and west, 19th Avenue runs north and south and Grand Avenue extends northwesterly and southeasterly. The southeasterly portion of Grand Avenue lies south of McDowell and east of 19th Avenue, whereas the northwesterly portion of Grand Avenue lies north of McDowell and west of 19th Avenue. For the purpose of clarity we will assume that Grand Avenue runs north and south. When we refer to the direction 'south' in truth of fact we mean southeasterly, and when we refer to the direction 'north' we mean northwesterly.

In the car driven by Amparano there were three passengers, the plaintiffs Cruz and a Mr. X, who had shortly theretofore received knife woulds at or near Glendale, Arizona, and who was being transported to a hospital. At a point approximately a mile and one-half north of Six Points, on Grand Avenue, the Amparano car had been intercepted by a highway patrolman whose attention was directed to the car on account of the excessive speed at which it was being driven. On learning of the mission of the occupants of the Amparano car the patrolman offered to escort Amparano, and insofar as possible provide an open and unobstructed right-of-way. Amparano was instructed by the patrolman to 'follow me' and 'stay close to me'. The patrolman then proceeded to drive at a pseed of between 65 and 75 miles per hour in a southerly direction on Grand Avenue. Amparano endeavored to and did 'follow' at a distance of approximately 150 to 200 ft. During this trip the patrolman was sounding his siren and showing the red light. Grand Avenue, north and south of the Six Points intersection, contained four wide and wellmarked lanes of traffic, and at the six-point intersection was controlled by a series of stop and go lights. Immediately preceding the accident all north and south vehicular traffic on Grand Avenue was stopped on the red light signal. On reaching the intersection the patrolman discovered that both lanes on Grand Avenue, southbound, were occupied with cars. There were at least two automobiles in the westerly 'slow' lane and four automobiles, one behind the other, in the easterly 'passing' lane, waiting for the signal to turn green. On the south side of West McDowell both of the northbound lanes of Grand Avenue were occupied by automobiles, one of which was the automobile driven by the defendant West, which was stopped in the east lane, next to the curb. The patrolman (southbound), on approaching the southbound cars, suddenly discovered that the passing lane which he desired to use was occupied by four cars, end to end, the most northerly car of which had no illuminated tail light, (9:30 P.M.). At this point he made a quick swerve to his left (east) and crossed over the center line of Grand Avenue into the passing lane reserved for cars being driven north. The officer passed this 'fourth' car and without mishap successfully pulled into the intersection, at which time he swerved to his right and in so doing, easily and with space to spare, passed the defendant approximately in the middle of the intersection. When the stop and go lights turned green West pulled out into the intersection, intending to proceed northerly on Grand Avenue. West testified that he did not hear the siren or see the red light of the approaching patrolman until the patrolman zoomed into the intersection, where they passed each other. West continued on in his slow lane (righthand lane for him) and had almost crossed over the north boundary line of West McDowell when the car driven by Amparano collided head-on with his car. Amparano testified that in his endeavor to keep up with the patrolman he did not see the last (fourth) car in the passing lane, going south on Grand Avenue, until he was practically on it. He swerved sharply to the left and 'clipped' the left rear fender of the stationary car (fourth car), knocking off its fender and tail light. In his attempt to avoid colliding with this car he crossed over the center line of Grand Avenue, across the passing lane for northbound traffic, and into the eastmost lane of Grand Avenue, being the lane in which defendant West was travelling.

At the time of impact defendant's car was barely moving or 'perhaps stopped'. From this collision the plaintiffs, Cruz and Cruz, received personal injuries which were the basis of their claims. In the court below Ygnacio Amparano, the owner of the car, was also a plaintiff, claiming damages on account of the injuries to his automobile. On this demand the verdict of the jury was against him and judgment was entered thereon, from which no appeal has been taken. Defendant West counter-complained against Delores Amparano, seeking recovery for damage to his car. On this demand the verdict was for the counter-defendant (Amparano) and judgment was entered thereon, and on this portion of the judgment there is no appeal. The driver of the so-called fourth car above referred to (Mr. J. E. Maxwell) was also made a party defendant. On his motion a directed verdict was entered for him, on the ground that the evidence showed no actionable negligence on his part, from which there has been no appeal.

The negligence charged against the defendant West was 'that in total disregard of the flashing red light and siren of the leading police car, he continued down the center lane of the highway and failed and refused to pull over to the right side of the road and stop as required by law'. The uncontradicted evidence was that defendant was, at the moment of the collision, in the easterly lane. As we view the fact situation and the law applicable thereto, it makes no difference as to which of the two lanes he was in proceeding to the point of collision.

By proper assignments of error defenda...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • In re Quiroz
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • May 11, 2018
    ...part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains is based on foreseeability."); West v. Cruz , 75 Ariz. 13, 19, 251 P.2d 311 (1952) (adopting Palsgraf’s foreseeability framework for determining duty); see also Prosser & Keeton, The Law of Torts § 43, at 2......
  • Tucker v. Lombardo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 12, 1956
    ...proposition is supported by numerous authorities. See Johnson v. Union Furniture Co., 31 Cal.App.2d 234, 238, 84 P.2d 917; West v. Cruz, 75 Ariz. 13, 251 P.2d 311, 314; American Lumber Sales Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 127 Me. 65, 141 A. 102, 105; Moen v. Madison Rys. Co., 199 Wis. 168, 225 ......
  • Cooke v. Berlin
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 1987
    ...viewed in the abstract. See Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 284 N.Y. 329, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), adopted in Arizona, West v. Cruz, 75 Ariz. 13, 251 P.2d 311 (1952).* Although the lead of this case lists the Attorney General as co-counsel, the Attorney General has not appeared in this cou......
  • Rossell v. Volkswagen of America
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • October 28, 1985
    ...to potential victims outside the zone of foreseeable risk. Palsgraf is the law in Arizona. See McFarlin v. Hall, supra; West v. Cruz, 75 Ariz. 13, 251 P.2d 311 (1952). However, a passenger in a motor vehicle is not an "unforeseeable plaintiff" as to the manufacturer of that vehicle. Palsgra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • 21.5 Causation.
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona AZ Tort Law Handbook Chapter 21 Negligence (21.1 to 21.15.8)
    • Invalid date
    ...cmt. A. (2005); Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts § 180 (2nd Ed. 2002); Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 41 (5th Ed. 1984).[163] West v. Cruz, 75 Ariz. 13, 18, 251 P.2d 311, 314 (1953).[164] Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liab. Physical Harm 6 SP NT (2005) (scope of liability); Rogers v. Retrum, 1......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT