Court Opinion

ID: 9528424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:41:00.150368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:51.144596
License: Public Domain

THOMPSON J., Dissenting.
I dissent.
It appears beyond question that the pole maintained by respondent in the instant case was one of a line of poles located six feet from the paved portion of the highway and that, had they been moved farther from the highway, the cross arms and wires would have been above private property. The accident happened on a clear night, when the paved portion of the street was clearly distinguishable from the unpaved part. Under such circumstances, it was the duty of the trial judge to direct a verdict for the defendant. The rule stated in Waldorf v. City of Alhambra, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 522 [45 Pac. (2d) 207], and supported by the authorities therein cited, is to the effect that the pavement, parkways and poles constitute a barrier or warning to the alert driver. I think the rule is founded in common justice and should be applied in this case. Negligence cannot be predicated upon the location o£ light or telephone poles off and away from the highway, where reasonable men would not anticipate the presence of vehicular or other traffic.
Shenk, J., concurred.
Rehearing denied. Shenk, J., Thompson, J., and Conrey, J., voted for a rehearing.