Young

Plaintiff, Gaston Young, was injured when he was struck by an automobile operated by defendant, John W. Carlson. In this action for damages the plaintiff proffered properly drafted instructions on last clear chance. The trial court refused to give such instructions. The jury brought in a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered on that verdict. His sole contention is that the instructions on last clear chance should have been given, and that it was prejudicial error to refuse to give them.

It is, of course, “the duty of the court to instruct on every theory of the case finding support in the evidence.” (Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, 40 Cal.2d 614, 623 [ 255 P.2d 785 ]; see also Simmer v. City & County of San Francisco, 116 Cal.App.2d 724 [ 254 P.2d 185 ]; Doran v. City & County of San Francisco, (Cal.App.) [ 274 P.2d 464 ].) Therefore, the basic question is whether, interpreting the evidence most strongly in favor of the appellant, there is any reasonable basis for the application of the last clear chance doctrine. (Bolton v. Martin, 126 Cal.App.2d 178 [ 271 P.2d 991 ].)

The facts are not substantially in dispute. Appellant was employed…