Wilson

Wilson v. Kestenholz

Good Law
113 Cal. App. 13·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 786·297 P. 954
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 1931Docket No. 6612.California554 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Craig, J.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff by the Superior Court of Orange County for damages, and has assigned as his principal ground for reversal an asserted insufficiency of evidence.

It was agreed that while driving an automobile in a southerly direction on West Street in the city of Anaheim, the defendant struck the plaintiff, who was walking ahead of him in the same direction. The latter swore that she was at all times walking on the “soft dirt”, about one and one-half feet to two feet to the right and parallel with an oiled pavement which was between sixteen and eighteen feet wide, constituting the main thoroughfare for motor vehicles. She testified positively that she was at no time on the pavement, that she heard an automobile approaching behind her, but that no,signal was given. The defendant testified that he was driving on the pavement, that he saw the plaintiff about fifteen feet in front of his car, and that he did not change his course nor depart from the regular macadamized surface. The trial court found, however, that the .defendant was driving “in' a negligent, careless and unlawful manner”, which catised the plaintiff to be…

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.