Fennessey
Fennessey v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
A hearing was granted in this cause by this court after decision by the District Court of Appeal, First District, Division One. After examining the record and contentions of counsel we are convinced that the decision of the District Court of Appeal is correct, and we therefore adopt the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Ward when this case was pending in the District Court of Appeal and make it the decision of this court, as follows:
The accident occurred on the south side of Market street just west of Tenth Street in San Francisco, where Foley had parked a company truck between the south curb and a safety zone for the purpose of cleaning, servicing and doing repair work to street lighting .fixtures owned by the city and county of San Francisco. The work as performed involved the use of a “tower” truck and it is admitted that in its position near the curb there was insufficient space for eastbound traffic *143 to pass between it and the safety zone. Defendant Maneeis, proceeding east on Market Street, passed the truck by driving his automobile, which he was using as a jitney bus, to the left (north) of the safety zone, along the street car tracks. Mrs. Fennessey was standing in or…
Dissenting Opinion
Edmonds, J.
Although I agree that the appellants were guilty of negligence as a matter of law, I fail to find any causal connection between their negligence and the injuries sustained by the respondent. Ordinarily, the question of proximate cause, like those of negligence and contributory negligence, is one of fact to be determined by the jury. But where only one conclusion may reasonably be drawn from the facts, the question becomes one of law (Schwartz v. California Gas & Elec. Co., 163 Cal. 398 [ 125 Pac. 1044 ]; Traylen v. Citraro, 112 Cal. App. 172 [ 297 Pac. 649 ]; Gallichotte v. California etc. Assn., 4 Cal. App. (2d) 503 [ 41 P. (2d) 349 ]; Kostouros v. O’Connell, 39 Cal. App. (2d) 618 [ 103 P. (2d) 1028 ]; Restatement, Torts [American Law Institute], sec. 434).
According to uncontroverted evidence, the truck was *146 parked in such a manner as to prevent automobiles east bound on Market Street from passing between the curb and the safety zone. This zone is 64 feet in length and is protected by raised buttons. The tracks of the Municipal Railway lie four feet north of and parallel with the safety zone, and about the same distance farther north are the tracks of the Market Street…