Watkins

Watkins v. Ohman

Good Law
1967 Cal. App. LEXIS 1998·251 Cal. App. 2d 501·59 Cal. Rptr. 709
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 1, 1967Civ. No. 647California1,450 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conley, J.

The plaintiff, who as a guest in an auto-

mobile, was injured on April 27, 1964, when the car in which she was sitting was struck by another vehicle co-owned by Eugene Ohman and his wife, Donna Mae Ohman, and driven by her, appeals from a verdict adverse to her claim. There is no suggestion that there was contributory negligence, and the evidence shows that Mrs. Watkins was injured as a result of the collision, notwithstanding a sharp conflict as to whether the injury was of major proportions or trifling. It may be deduced accordingly, from an examination of the record, that the jury based its verdict on the theory that the driver of the defendants’ car was free from negligence.

It is an inescapable conclusion that liability for torts of this character is essentially welded to a theory of blame; here the defendant driver, while operating an automobile on the public highways of the City of Fresno, was *503 required to act as a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances; and it was for the jury to determine whether or not Mrs. Ohman so acted. If she did—and that is the jury’s implied finding—there was no liability on the part of the defendants, and they were…

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.