Howarth

Howarth v. Maroney

Good Law
1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1062·228 Cal. App. 2d 116·39 Cal. Rptr. 260
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 22, 1964Civ. 10724California3,625 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pierce, J.

Plaintiff Howarth sued defendant Maroney, as driver, and defendant Algirina Pate, as owner, for personal injuries and property damages after a collision of automobiles. Defendants cross-complained for their injuries. They appeal from the judgment following a jury’s verdict in plaintiff’s favor.

Collision occurred while Maroney was executing a left turn across U.S. 99-E in front of Howarth’s northbound automobile. Contentions on appeal are that the trial court prejudicially erred in giving inaccurate ad lib additions and interpolations to accurate BAJI instructions on (1) the duty of a left-turning driver to yield tne right of way, and (2) on the doctrine of last clear chance.

Our holding is that inconsequential misstatement occurred in the trial judge’s choice of illustrative language and in the recounting of several details of testimony. Malapropos a discussion of the doctrine of last clear chance, there was a slip-of-the-tongue confusion of the parties’ names. Any error was nonprejudicial.

Because we find some error, our obligation is to determine whether justice has miscarried. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 4%.) In making that determination we must, to some extent, weigh the…

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.