Opinion ID: 2614372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Instruction on Presumption of Due Care

Text: Defendant contends that since plaintiff testified fully as to her acts and conduct in descending the stairs, the trial court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury on the presumption of due care. [13] Under the rule accepted by the majority of this court, the disputable presumptions (contained in Code Civ. Proc., § 1963) are evidence and as such can be weighed. ( Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585, 590-598 [128 P.2d 16]; cf. 24 U. of Chi. L. Rev. 211, 219.) [14] Although an instruction on the presumption of due care may properly be given under certain circumstances (see e.g., Westberg v. Willde, 14 Cal.2d 360 [94 P.2d 590]; Scott v. Burke, 39 Cal.2d 388 [247 P.2d 313]; Gigliotti v. Nunes, 45 Cal.2d 85 [286 P.2d 809]), it is now settled that an instruction on the presumption should not be given when the party who seeks to invoke it testifies concerning his conduct immediately prior to or at the time in question. ( Rogers v. Interstate Transit Co., 212 Cal. 36 [297 P. 884]; Paulsen v. McDuffie, 4 Cal.2d 111 [47 P.2d 709]; Mundy v. Marshall, 8 Cal.2d 294 [65 P.2d 65]; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 [128 P.2d 16]; Barker v. City of Los Angeles, 57 Cal. App.2d 742 [135 P.2d 578]; Ringo v. Johnson, 99 Cal. App.2d 124 [221 P.2d 267]; Jones v. Scurlock, 96 Cal. App.2d 201 [214 P.2d 599]; Ford v. Chesley Transportation Co., 101 Cal. App.2d 548 [225 P.2d 997]; Rozzen v. Blumenfeld, 117 Cal. App.2d 285 [255 P.2d 850]; Verhaegen v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 126 Cal. App.2d 442 [272 P.2d 855]; Stout v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co., 127 Cal. App.2d 491 [274 P.2d 194]; Nunnemaker v. Headlee, 140 Cal. App.2d 666 [295 P.2d 438]; Swanson v. Bogatin, 149 Cal. App.2d 755 [308 P.2d 918]; Hughes v. City & County of San Francisco, 158 Cal. App.2d 419 [322 P.2d 623].) [15] In the present case plaintiff testified to her conduct immediately prior to or at the time of her fall. In the face of this evidence there was no room for any presumption. ( Rogers v. Interstate Transit Co., 212 Cal. 36, 38 [297 P. 884].) It was therefore error to give the instruction. [16] The question remains whether the error was prejudicial. In Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652, 660-661 [320 P.2d 500], it is stated that: The determination whether, in a specific instance, the probable effect of the instruction has been to mislead the jury, and whether the error has been prejudicial so as to require reversal depends on all the circumstances of the case, including the evidence, and the other instructions given. No precise formula can be drawn. In that case, the giving of an instruction on unavoidable accident was held to constitute reversible error because it tended to overemphasize defendant's case. From the evidence presented in the present case the jury could reasonably have drawn the inference either way on the vital issue of plaintiff's contributory negligence. The giving of the instruction obviously added strength to the plaintiff's contention that she was acting with due care for her own safety, and thus overemphasized her claim in the minds of the jury. The defendant was thereby forced to overcome by a preponderance of the evidence, not only plaintiff's case that she was free from contributory negligence, but also the presumption that she was acting with due care. Instructions like the one here involved necessitated reversal in the similar cases of Rozzen v. Blumenfeld, 117 Cal. App.2d 285 [255 P.2d 850]; Verhaegen v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 126 Cal. App.2d 442 [272 P.2d 855]; and Stout v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co., 127 Cal. App.2d 491 [274 P.2d 194], on the ground that the erroneous instruction may have tipped the scale in plaintiff's favor in the deliberations of the jury. It was therefore prejudicial error to give the instruction. The judgment is reversed.