Hare

The respondent was injured by appellant’s automobile while attempting to walk across a public street in the city of Los Angeles, and this is an appeal from a judgment rendered in her favor, holding that appellant was negligent, and rejecting a plea of contributory negligence.

Appellant concedes that the determination of the question here presented must be governed by the evidence given on behalf of the respondent. It is also agreed that respondent walked from her automobile on the westerly side of Glendale Boulevard, to the safety zone, on the easterly side thereof, and that appellant was driving in á northerly direction upon said thoroughfare. Respondent testified that she first saw appellant’s headlights when he appeared to be 250 or 300 feet away; that as she reached the middle of the street it was about 200 feet from her, and that it was in the middle of the street and about 100 feet distant when she arrived at the safety zone which a diagram indicated as being 11 feet 4 inches from the easterly curb. It appears that as she approached within about 18 inches of the curb, appellant struck her with his machine.

It is argued that respondent, seeing the automobile at a distance…