McBride

The verdict of a jury and resultant judgment having been rendered in favor of the plaintiff in an action for damages alleged to have been sustained through negligence of the defendant, the latter appealed.

From the evidence elicited from certain of its witnesses the appellant argues that the verdict is wholly without support as to the manner in which two automobiles of the parties collided upon a public thoroughfare in the city of Los Angeles. It is conceded that a Buick car of the respondent was being driven along a boulevard as a Ford truck of the appellant emerged from a narrow driveway and that they met upon the main highway. Arguments are' devoted largely to positions of the machines after the impact and to conjecture with respect to the possible proximate cause of the injury thereto. An eye-witness swore positively that the Ford proceeded at a rate of twenty miles per hour for a distance of thirty feet and without lessening speed entered the boulevard, turned toward the left and came suddenly in front of the Buick. The plaintiff testified that “it just shot out of the alley and I wasn’t very far from the alley and it shot out at an angle and I had no opportunity of seeing…

I concur. Appellant strenuously contends that the physical evidence shows that the accident was due to the fact that plaintiff’s Buick was being driven on the wrong side of the street. Prom the appearance of both cars as shown by the exhibits and the fact that the accident occurred approximately 19 feet north of the north line of Edgewood Place as it intersects West Boulevard, on which plaintiff was traveling, the jury might well infer that defendant’s driver did not enter such boulevard from Edgewood Place as defendant’s witnesses testified, but instead crossed the path of plaintiff’s car on an angle, so that only the left front corner of the Biiick struck the truck, crushing into and along the side of it, and that to get in such a position the truck must have entered West Boulevard as testified by plaintiff’s witnesses.

There are two dark lines shown on exhibit “B” extending down toward the Buick as the ear is shown at rest after the accident. The jury might also conclude that they were not made by the Buick, as they do not answer the description of the marks testified to by defendant’s witnesses as leading to the wheels of that machine, as the left track was fixed as only 16y2…