Crago

Crago v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co.

Good Law
178 Cal. App. 2d 751·1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 2651·3 Cal. Rptr. 183
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 10, 1960Civ. No. 18540California1,555 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bray, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment, after jury verdict in favor of defendants, and from the order denying motion for new trial. *

Questions Presented

1. Refusal of instruction on presumption of due care.

2. Effect of giving crosswalk instructions.

Evidence

Plaintiff and her sister were returning to Sacramento from their work at McClellan Air Force Base. They alighted from a bus at a point on highway 40 where there is a bench apparently furnished by the bus company for its passengers. There is no crosswalk marked on the highway. There are three lanes on the highway. Defendant Honeycutt, driving for defendant Pacific Motor Trucking Company, stopped his truck in the lane nearest the two women. The two women testified, and Honeycutt denied, that he waved his hand signalling them to cross the highway in front of his truck. Plaintiff testified that she looked both to the right and left, after the truck stopped, and the highway looked clear. She then saw Honeycutt make a motion for them to cross. Then she started across the road and remembers her sister being on “that side” (towards the direction from which the car which struck plaintiff came) and “after I got struck then I was in…

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.