Brown

Brown v. Los Angeles Railway Co.

Good Law
1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 144·2 Cal. App. 618·84 P. 362
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 8, 1906Civ. No. 125.California1,134 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The suit was brought to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant in the operation of its cars. Plaintiff was driving a one-horse buggy, to which was attached a hack, to which in turn was attached a vehicle called a "runabout"; and the alleged injury was caused by the collision of one of defendant's cars with the hack, at the intersection of Flower and Twelfth streets in the city of Los Angeles. The former street runs north and south, and the plaintiff had approached defendant's track while traveling eastward on Twelfth street. The court found that the injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant, and gave judgment for the sum of $500 damages, from which, and from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. The only question involved is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the finding. According to plaintiff's testimony, as he approached Flower street he was going in a walk, and when he had approached within fifteen feet of the track he stopped and took a look both ways, and seeing no car, proceeded to cross, when the accident occurred. But in the opinion of the court, which is inserted in the statement on motion…

Concurring Opinion

I concur in the principal opinion and in the reasoning thereof; and, in addition, I think a reasonable conclusion from all the evidence is that, while the plaintiff may have been negligent, yet the motorman had actual notice of the dangerous position in which plaintiff had placed himself, and a clear opportunity to have avoided the collision by the exercise of reasonable diligence to do so after he saw the dangerous position in which plaintiff was placing himself. A street-car running into the third in a series of a horse and three vehicles, coupled together and passing before it, is pretty good evidence of gross negligence on the part of the motorman. A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on March 8, 1906, and the following opinion rendered thereon:

Addendum

Upon the evidence in this case the findings and conclusions of the superior court are clearly sustained by the doctrine of "last clear chance." *Page 622

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.