This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action for damages resulting from the collision of two trucks, and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Plaintiff in his complaint alleged that the collision was caused by defendant’s negligence in operating his truck and that plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $1,814.84 for damages done to his truck, and the further sum of $1,300 for loss .of use of the truck. Defendant’s answer denied any negligence on his part and also set up the defense of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff.

Following a trial by the court without a jury the court found that defendant so negligently operated his truck that it collided with plaintiff’s truck; that plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $3,376. Upon motion for a new trial the court, in denying the motion, modified the findings and judgment by reducing the amount awarded for damages to the truck from $2,076 to $1,814.84 (the amount alleged in the complaint), so the amount of the judgment, as finally entered and as appealed from, is the sum of $3,114.84.

Appellant first contends that respondent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and asserts that the road in question was 13 feet in width at the point of impact; that respondent was driving downhill and appellant driving uphill, and that under section 527 of the Vehicle Code respondent was required to yield the right of way to appellant, which appellant claims he did not do. Even if it be assumed that the statute in question was violated by respondent, yet, as stated by our Supreme Court in the very recent case of Tossman v. Newman, 37 Cal.2d 522 , at page 525 [ 233 P.2d 1 ]:

And in Satterlee v. Orange Glenn School Dist., 29 Cal.2d 581 , the court said at page 588 [ 177 P.2d 279 ]:

The record fully supports the factual situation set forth in the opinion of the trial court as follows:

Two passers-by, who were at the scene of the collision immediately after it happened and heard the conversation between these parties have fully corroborated the plaintiff’s testimony in that regard. The defendant has not denied it.

Therefore, the Court must assume that such testimony is correct. The Court is consequently forced to the conclusion that the defendant was not at the time using ordinary care in the operation of his truck and that the lack of ordinary care was the proximate cause of the damages sustained by plaintiff’s truck, and plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover against the defendant.”

We believe that the finding of the trial court that the collision was proximately caused by the negligence of appellant and that respondent was not careless or negligent finds substantial support in the record. These were matters for the trial court to determine from all of the evidence. For, as stated in Anthony v. Hobbie, 25 Cal.2d 814 [ 155 P.2d 826 ], at page 818:

Appellant next contends that there is no evidence to support the court’s finding as to tha reasonable value of the loss of use of the truck. This contention is without merit. The following summary of the evidence on this issue set forth in the opinion of the trial court finds ample support in the record:

As stated in Valencia v. Shell Oil Co:, 23 Cal.2d 840 , at page 844 [ 147 P.2d 588 ]: “An owner’s recovery for being deprived of the use of the damaged vehicle is generally to be determined with reference to the period of time reasonably required for the making of repairs.”

The evidence was sufficient to show that the rental value of the truck was in excess of the $50 per day allowed by the court. If there were some items of cost of operation that were not clearly .brought out in the .evidence no .prejudice resulted to appellant therefrom. Appellant could have easily brought out these items if he had deemed it important. Furthermore, as stated in Johnsbn v. Snyder, 99 Cal.App.2d 86 at page 90 [ 221 P.2d 164 ]: “ [F]or services of a commonplace or nontechnical character, the trial judge can call on his own general knowledge of their value. (Estate of Reinhertz, 82 Cal.App.2d 156, 160 [ 185 P.2d 858 , 186 P.2d 755 ] and cases cited.) ” No other points raised required discussion.

In view of the foregoing the judgment is affirmed. The appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial is dismissed.

Adams, P. J., and Peek, J¡, concurred.