Case Name: ELIZABETH SEBRELL, Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES RAILWAY CORPORATION (a Corporation), Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1948-05-04
Citations: 31 Cal. 2d 813
Docket Number: L. A. No. 20433
Parties: ELIZABETH SEBRELL, Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES RAILWAY CORPORATION (a Corporation), Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 813–825

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 20433.
In Bank.
May 4, 1948.]
ELIZABETH SEBRELL, Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES RAILWAY CORPORATION (a Corporation), Respondent.
Forrest A. Betts for Appellant.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Sherman Welpton, Jr., for Respondent.

Opinion:
TRAYNOR, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for defendant in an action for damages for injuries to person and property sustained in a collision between her automobile and a streetcar owned by defendant. Plaintiff's automobile, proceeding south on New Hampshire Avenue in Los Angeles, and defendant's streetcar, proceeding west on Sixth Street, collided at the intersection. A boulevard stop sign on the northwest corner of the intersection of the two streets requires southbound vehicles on New Hampshire Avenue to stop before crossing Sixth Street. There are no stop signs on Sixth Street requiring vehicles approaching New Hampshire Avenue to stop. Plaintiff testified that she made the required stop and carefully looked to her right and left; that the intersection is a blind intersection; that she did not see the streetcar or any "moving traffic" on Sixth Street; and that she remembers "nothing at all" from the time she brought her automobile to a stop until after the collision, since injuries from the collision deprived her of any memory of the events related to the accident. The streetcar operator testified that he could not see north on New Hampshire Avenue until he was within a distance of a few feet from the intersection ; that when he was 10 or 15 feet from the east curb line of New Hampshire Avenue, he first saw plaintiff's automobile traveling at a speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour; that plaintiff crossed the white line on New Hampshire Avenue, at which southbound vehicles were required to stop, and never applied the brakes; that he applied the emergency brake as quickly as he could; that the front of the streetcar collided with the door of the automobile on the side where plaintiff was sitting; that plaintiff did not vary her speed after he first saw her or "look up ' ' before the streetcar struck the automobile; that he rang the bell intermittently while he was proceeding on Sixth Street, and that "I am pretty sure I rang it as fast as I could ring it when I seen danger." Other witnesses testified that they heard the streetcar bell ringing before the accident occurred. One of the streetcar passengers testified that as it approached the scene of the accident the streetcar proceeded at a speed of approximately 20 miles per hour; that she first saw plaintiff's automobile when it was-approximately 10 feet north of the boulevard stop sign; that it looked "like it would come through the stop sign and strike" her; that the automobile did not stop before entering the intersection; that she felt the streetcar slow down a little when the brakes were applied.
Plaintiff does not contend that the verdict was not supported by the evidence. The sole issue on appeal is raised by her contention that the trial court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury. The jury was instructed: "I instruct you that it would be a violation of your duty as jurors to consider the question of injuries or damages, if any, prior to determining the issue of liability or to allow the question of injuries or damages, if any, to affect your judgment in any way in determining the issue of liability. The first question for you to decide is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action against the defendant. If you find from the evidence that plaintiff is not entitled to recover, then it is your duty to immediately return the verdict in favor of said defendant." The jury was also instructed: "It is the testimony of plaintiff in this case that she does not recollect any event related to the accident, and that her last recollection is that of having brought her automobile to a stop with the front end of it approximately even with the boulevard stop sign which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection. A person who has been so grievously injured in an accident as to be deprived of her memory is entitled to the presumption that she exercised reasonable care for her own protection. ."
Plaintiff contends that the first instruction withheld from the jury the right to consider plaintiff's injuries in determining the issue of liability, and therefore conflicted with the instruction that the jury consider whether as a result of her injuries plaintiff had been deprived of her memory and was thus entitled to the presumption that she exercised reasonable care for her own protection. The latter instruction directed the jury to consider plaintiff's injuries in determining liability for the question whether her injuries resulted in a loss of memory entitling her to the presumption was a material issue concerning liability. Plaintiff contends that the conflict between the instructions substantially affected her right to the presumption that she exercised reasonable care for her own protection. She relies on Simmons v. Lamb, 35 Cal.App.2d 109 [94 P.2d 814], in which the jury was instructed "that it would be a violation of your duty as jurors, to discuss the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries, if any, until you shall have first determined the question of whether or not the defendant is liable. The question of liability should first be determined by you before it would be proper for you in any wise to discuss the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, if any, because unless the defendant is liable, the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, if any, shall not enter into your deliberations." In that .case it was important for the determination of the issue of liability whether the' plaintiff or her allegedly intoxicated companion was driving the plaintiff's automobile when it collided with the defendants' truck. As to that question the defendants relied on the fact that flesh, blood, and hair, which according to the. nature of the injuries of the plaintiff were likely to be hers, were found on the broken windshield in front of the place where a passenger would be sitting. The District Court of Appeal held that, although in some cases the instruction as given would be proper, "[N] evertheless, in the circumstances here presented, it was prejudicial error to instruct the jury not to consider the nature and extent of respondent's injuries until they had determined the question of liability therefor. Before the jury could decide whether respondent or appellants were responsible for the collision, it was necessary to determine whether respondent or her companion . . . was driving the Chevrolet, and in order to do that, it was necessary for the jurors to consider the nature and extent of respondent's injuries." (35 Cal.App.2d 113.)
In the present case the jury was not instructed as it was in Simmons v. Lamb, supra, that the issue of liability should first be determined "before it would be proper for you in any wise to discuss the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries," or that "unless the defendant is liable, the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, if any, shall not enter into your deliberations." The jury was instructed that they should not "consider the question of injuries or damages, if any, prior to determining the issue of liability, or to allow the question of injuries or damages, if any, to affect your judgment in any way in determining the issue of liability." (Italics added.) This instruction in effect advised the jury that they should not assume that defendant was negligent and pass immediately to a discussion of the question of damages and that they should not be swayed by sympathy or sentiment because of the injuries in determining the issue of liability. The instruction could reasonably be understood as requiring the jury merely to separate in its deliberations the question of injuries and damages from the question of liability. Such separation of the two distinct issues in the deliberations of the jury could be observed even though the jury would have to consider plaintiff's injuries in determining whether she suffered a loss of memory entitling her to the presumption. If the two instructions are read together, it is clear the jury could not reasonably doubt that it could consider plaintiff's injuries in determining whether plaintiff suffered the loss of memory on which her right to the presumption depended.
In the Simmons case the instruction withholding from the jury consideration of plaintiff's injuries in determining the issue of liability stood alone; it was not supplemented by an instruction requiring the jury to consider the injuries sustained by plaintiff in determining whether the plaintiff or her companion was driving the plaintiff's automobile when the collision occurred. Thus, the jury was precluded from considering the injuries of the plaintiff even for the purpose of determining who was driving the plaintiff's automobile at the time of the accident. In that case there was therefore no problem as to conflicting instructions, whereas in the present case the question is whether there is such a conflict between the two instructions in question that the jury could reasonably doubt that it was entitled to follow the instruction requiring it to consider plaintiff's injuries in determining whether she suffered a loss of memory.
Instructions that aré contradictory in essential elements may warrant the reversal of a judgment on the ground that it cannot be ascertained which instruction was followed by the jury. (Chidester v. Consolidated People's Ditch Co., 53 Cal. 56, 58; Starr v. Los Angeles Railway Co., 187 Cal. 270, 280 [201 P. 599]; Soda v. Marriot, 118 Cal.App. 635, 643 [5 P.2d 675].) In determining whether there is such a conflict the decisive question is whether the instructions read as a whole and in the light of the circumstances of the case in which they were given, are apt to confuse a person of ordinary intelligence. It is common knowledge that instructions, like statutes, may include in addition to a general rule a special rule applicable only in particular circumstances and that the special rule qualifies the general. (See, Civ. Code, § 3534; Code Civ. Proc., § 1859; Fasset v. Nascimiento, 108 Cal.App. 14, 19 [291 P. 269].) In the present case the instruction relating to the presumption required the jury to consider a particular consequence of plaintiff's injuries for the purpose specified in the instruction. No explicit statement was necessary to make a person of ordinary intelligence understand that a consideration of plaintiff's injuries in conformity with this instruction would not violate the general instruction that the jury determine the question of liability before it considered the question of injuries or damages.
The judgment is affirmed and the appeal from the order denying a new trial is dismissed.
Edmonds, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.