The facts upon which this appeal is based are stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Finlayson, presiding in the district court of appeal, second appellate district, division two. We adopt that opinion in part as follows:

[4] Upon a careful reconsideration of the appellants’ contention that the State Motor Vehicle Act of 1913 is the controlling law upon the subject and that it was error to give an instruction embodying the regulatory provisions of the city ordinance, we are constrained to confirm the opinion of the district court of appeal that the municipal ordinance in the respect noted was not inconsistent with the state law, but was valid and operative in the city of Los Angeles at the time of the plaintiff’s injury. And this, we think, is so regardless of the question of whether or not the regulation of the traffic upon the streets of a city is a ‘ ‘municipal affair. ’ ’ Conceding that if there were in fact a conflict between the ordinance and. the Motor Vehicle Act, the state law would prevail, still we find no conflict or inconsistency between the two enactments. The state law requires that a motor vehicle be operated with due care and caution when it overtakes a street-ear which is stopping on a city street to receive or discharge passengers, and further provides that the vehicle shall be brought to a full stop if reasonably necessary for the safety of such passengers. The municipal ordinance requires that the vehicle shall in all eases be stopped at a distance of ten feet in the rear of the stopping street-car. The ordinance certainly does not attempt to make lawful the performance of any act forbidden by the state law. It follows that a conflict, if any, can exist only upon the theory that the ordinance prohibits that which is affirmatively authorized by the Motor Vehicle Act. In short, the appellants are placed under the necessity of contending that that act affirmatively authorizes motor vehicles to pass a stopping street-car in a city whenever the apparent risk involved in so doing would not deter an ordinarily prudent and careful driver. We do not so construe the statute. [5] Where the legislature has assumed to regulate a given course of conduct by prohibitory enactments, a municipality with subordinate power to act in the matter may make such new and additional regulations in aid and furtherance of the purpose of the general law as may seem fit and appropriate to the necessities of the particular locality and which are not in themselves unreasonable. Mr. Justice Henshaw stated in the case of In re Hoffman, 155 Cal. 114, 118 , [ 132 Am. St. Rep. 75 , 99 Pac. 517, 519 ], that the correctness of this principle cannot be doubted. He continues: “If the state should pass a law declaring it unlawful to erect a chimney of a height exceeding one hundred and fifty feet, would anyone seriously contend that a city of the state within the earthquake zone might not by ordinance, in the clear exercise of police power, for the benefit of its citizens, still further restrict the height of chimneys? Such, in principle, is the present case. The legislature has in effect declared that it shall be unlawful to sell milk containing less than eleven and five tenths per centum solids, three per centum of which solids ■ shall be milk fat. An ordinance of a municipality requiring of the milk vended therein a larger percentage of solids, if not in its exactions unreasonable, does no violence to the law of the state. The state’s declaration merely is that milk shall not be sold containing less than eleven and five-tenths per centum of solids, three per centum of which shall be milk fat. If the city of Los Angeles had provided that milk might be vended which contained less per centum of milk fats than that exacted by the state law, there would be presented a plain case of conflict. The municipality would be endeavoring to legalize that which the state had declared to be unlawful. But what the city has in fact done has been to impose not fewer but additional qualifications upon the milk which may be vended to its consumers. The state in its laws deals with all of its territory and all of its people. The exactions which it prescribes operate (except in municipal affairs) upon the people of the state, urban and rural, but it may often happen, and does often happen that the requirements which the state sees fit to impose may not be adequate to meet the demands of densely populated municipalities; so that it becomes proper and even necessary for municipalities to add to state regulations provisions adapted to their special requirements. Such is the nature of the legislation here questioned.”

It is true that in the ease of In re Hoffman, supra, the state statute therein considered was general in its terms and made no distinction between regulations applicable in urban and those applicable in rural communities, whereas the Motor Vehicle Act makes express provision that certain rules shall' apply in business districts, that other rules shall apply in territory which is closely built up and that still different rules shall apply in country districts. But it does not follow that, because the legislature has seen fit to distinguish in the operation of the act between urban and rural communities and to make certain general rules applicable in all of the cities of the state, it has thereby impliedly prohibited the enactment of additional local regulations by municipalities in keeping with the purpose of the general law. The question whether

the legislature has undertaken to occupy exclusively a given field of legislation is, we- think, to be determined in every case upon an analysis of the statute and of the facts and circumstances upon which it was intended to operate. Such was the analysis made in the case of In re Hoffman, supra. The opinion of this court in Ex parte Hong Shen, 98 Cal. 681, 684 , [ 33 Pac. 799, 800 ], was based upon the same process of reasoning. There it was said:

Upon a careful analysis of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1913 and of its purpose viewed in the light of the traffic conditions upon which it was intended to operate, we are of the opinion that the reasoning of the court in the case last quoted is decisive of the question now presented. [6] In other words, we believe that by extending the operation of the act in terms to the traffic upon city streets the legislature did no more than to prescribe obviously necessary safeguards for travel upon such streets viewed as part of the public highways of the state in which all of the people of the state are essentially interested, and that it did not thereby intend to prohibit the enactment of such new and additional police regulations in furtherance of the purpose of the act as might appear reasonable and proper in a given locality. It is true that the Motor Vehicle Act of 1915 expressly limited the scope of such police regulations. (Stats. 1915, c. 188, sec. 22d.) It may perhaps be open to question whether the ordinance here in controversy falls within the prohibition of that act, but it is sufficient for the purpose of this ease to say that the Motor Vehicle Act as in force at the time of the plaintiff’s injury did not contain a clause prescribing limitations upon the local regulation of traffic. Moreover, the very fact that subdivision “d” was added to section 22 of the Motor Vehicle Act in 1915 shows, we think, that the construction which we have placed upon the act as it stood at the time of the plaintiff’s injury accords with the legislative intent.

The remaining contentions of the appellants are fully and correctly answered in the remaining portion of the opinion of Mr. Justice Finlayson which we adopt as follows: “Nor was it prejudicial error to instruct the jury in the language of both the state law and the ordinance. Upon this point appellants cite Sheperd v. St. Louis Transit Co., 189 Mo. 362 , [ 87 S. W. 1007 ], where the court enunciated the well recognized doctrine that where two inconsistent instructions are given, one declaring the law correctly and the other erroneously, the one that declares the law correctly does not cure the error of the other. But here there is no inconsistency between the specific requirements of the ordinance and the more general requirement of the state law that the driver of an automobile passing a street-ear ‘shall operate the vehicle with due care and caution,’ and shall bring it to ‘a full stop if reasonably necessary’ to the safety of passengers alighting from or boarding such street-ear. The ordinance has simply declared what, under certain circumstances, shall be necessary to constitute ‘due care and caution’ for the safety of such passengers. Furthermore, if, as we hold, the ordinance is operative . . . appellants were not injured merely because, in another part of the instructions, the court gave certain of the provisions of the state law that prescribe for appellants less onerous requirements.

[7] “ We perceive no prejudicial error in the instruction to the effect that, if the jury believed appellants violated the ordinance, ‘and that, by reason thereof, plaintiff sustained injuries, then you should find for the plaintiff, if you further find that at that time the plaintiff was in the exercise of reasonable care with regard to her own safety. ’ Assuming that it would have been more consonant with time-honored usage to have told the jury that a violation of the ordinance is ‘negligence,’ for which, if such violation was the proximate cause of her injuries, respondent could recover, nevertheless, in the instruction as given the court not only told the jury that respondent herself must be free from contributory negligence, but that, to entitle her to a verdict, they must find, not only that appellants violated the ordinance, but that ‘by reason thereof’—that is, by reason of their violation of the ordinance— ‘plaintiff sustained injuries.’ By this language the jurors were told, in effect, that they could find for respondent, she being free from contributory negligence, if her injuries were caused by appellants’ violation of the ordinance. It was not necessary for the court to add that they could find for respondent if, and only if, appellants’ acts were the ‘proximate’ cause of her injuries; for, in other instructions given by it, the court fully instructed the jury that, to find a verdict for plaintiff, they must not only find that the defendants were negligent, but ‘ also' that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff,’ and likewise instructed the jury as to the meaning of the phrase ‘proximate cause.’ The instruction complained of, which is one of a series, cannot fairly be torn from its context for criticism. The instructions, as a whole, show that the jurors were fully advised as to the necessity for finding that respondent’s injuries resulted from appellants’ conduct as the proximate cause thereof. ’ ’

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Shaw, J., Wilbur, J., Olney, J., Lawlor, J.? Melvin, J., and Angellotti, C. J., concurred.