Arthur

Arthur v. Santa Monica Dairy Co.

Good Law
183 Cal. App. 2d 483·1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 1776·6 Cal. Rptr. 808
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 3, 1960Civ. 24532California2,814 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lillie, J.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment in defendants’ favor rendered by the trial court sitting without a jury. His action was for damages for personal injuries received while riding as a guest in an automobile which collided with the rear of defendants’ parked truck. He contends only that the lower court’s finding that the accident was not proximately caused by the conduct of the defendants is unsupported by the evidence. The issue of plaintiff’s contributory negligence is not raised on appeal; no finding thereon was made by the trial court, although pleaded as an affirmative defense on which some evidence is found in the record.

We cannot conclude, as urged by appellant, that “the facts are not in dispute,” for the conduct of the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding, which appellant in his brief has chosen to ignore and which is here the deciding factor on the issue of proximate cause, was a matter which was determined by the trial court from indirect evidence. However, the following facts, and those relating to defendants’ conduct, are not controverted. At the time of the collision, on February 6,1957, at approximately 11:45 a.m., the weather was sunny and clear;…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.