Bence

Bence v. Teddy's Taxi

Caution
101 Cal. App. 748·1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 1016·282 P. 392
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 12, 1929Docket No. 3832.California2,077 words

Opinion

Opinion on Rehearing

Upon a petition for rehearing two points are insisted upon: First, that the opinion which reversed the judgment for plaintiff upon the ground that he was guilty of contributory negligence fails to state that his *753 negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries which he sustained; second, that in spite of the contributory negligence of plaintiff the judgment should, nevertheless, be sustained on the doctrine of the “last clear chance.” The first point is without merit. After reviewing the evidence the opinion clearly states that the failure of the plaintiff to look in the direction from which he should have anticipated the approach of vehicles, before attempting to cross the ' street, constituted contributory negligence. It was then said it was, therefore necessary to reverse the judgment because “the undisputed evidence showing a lack of due caution on the part of plaintiff precludes his right of recovery.” This conclusion is ample upon which to assume the appellate court was invoking the doctrine of contributory negligence which is necessarily based upon the assumption that the negligent acts or omissions on the part of the plaintiff in fact contributed to the cause of his…

Lead Opinion

This is an appeal from a judgment for damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of having been struck by a taxicab while crossing a street after leaving a street-car at an intersecting corner in Sacramento. The appellant relies chiefly upon the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff as a cause for reversal. The plaintiff failed to look to his right, whence the automobile which caused his injuries approached, before he proceeded to cross the street.

The plaintiff, who was seventy-five years of age, was employed as a janitor at the courthouse in Sacramento. The morning of June 16, 1928, he entered a street-car for the purpose of going to his work. Proceeding westerly along K Street this car stopped at about 5:30 o ’clock A. M. at the corner of Seventh Street, opposite the postoffice building. Except for the taxicab which was involved in the accident, no other traffic was present at this point. There were but two other passengers on the street-car. The pedestrians’ pathway across K Street where it intersects Seventh Street was indicated by broad white bands painted on the pavement. A safety zone four feet in width was likewise outlined on the pavement,…

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.