Merrill

Merrill v. Finigan

Good Law
133 Cal. App. 101·24 P.2d 188
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 1933Docket No. 7889.California1,507 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Parker, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $4,892.70, against the defendant B. & H. Transportation Company and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial. The appellants’ brief in reality is a duplicate of the reporter’s transcript, the object being apparently to secure here what the court below denied, a trial de novo. This hardly fits into the scheme of appellate practice. However, we will discuss the case as it is presented.

The controversy arises out of an automobile accident in which three different automobiles are involved and it happened in the intersection of two streets in Long Beach. Redondo Avenue runs in a general northerly and southerly direction. Redondo Avenue does not intersect Second Street in the sense that is generally understood when we speak of intersecting streets. The situation is that Redondo Avenue meets Second and stops; yet there is an area that might be classed as an intersection for our purposes.

Plaintiff Joseph E. Merrill was driving a Star automobile on a January night or evening, after dark. His lights were lit and he was driving at a speed of some ten miles per hour hugging the northerly curb of…

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.