Francis

Francis v. Riddle

Good Law
15 Cal. App. 2d 282·1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 55·59 P.2d 532
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 8, 1936Civ. 1757California3,031 words

Opinion

Opinion

Barnard, J.

This is an action for damages arising out of a collision between a pedestrian and an automobile used as a laundry truck. After a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs the court granted a motion for a new trial and the plaintiffs have appealed from that order. For convenience, the plaintiff wife will be referred to as the appellant and the driver of the laundry truck as the respondent.

The order granting a new trial did not specify the insufficiency of the evidence as a ground therefor, and the question here raised is whether or not the verdict is against law for the reason that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

The accident happened on the afternoon of August 12, 1933, on a paved highway some two miles north of the city of Visalia. This highway runs north and south, the pavement being Í6 feet wide and the right of way approximately 48 feet wide. The appellant and her husband lived on a place on the east side of this highway, their front fence being set back so that it was 31 feet from their front gate to the pavement. About 30 feet south of their front gate an unpaved public road came into the highway from the east but did not…

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.