Court Opinion

ID: 9864608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:20:24.692091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:22.243325
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
In his brief the plaintiff did not specify any act of defendant claimed to be negligence. In his petition for a rehearing plaintiff asserts that the defendant violated the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 113 of the Motor Vehicle Act (1 Deering’s Gen. Laws 1923, p. 1886), and that defendant failed to use ordinary care. (Rush v. Lagomarsino, 196 Cal. 308 [237 Pac. 1066].) The statute relied on refers to places “when the driver’s view is obstructed.” In this case there is no evidence that the driver’s view was obstructed. The statute relied on limits speed to fifteen miles “in traversing” an intersection. To traverse means “to pass across, pass over, cross in traveling.” (Cent. Diet.) As defendant traversed the intersection the *492record wholly fails to show that he did so at a speed of fifteen miles or more.
In his petition the plaintiff states that the driver of the truck ‘ ‘ admits that when he entered the intersection of the two streets he was traveling at a speed in excess of that allowed by law; and he admits that he saw and realized then that a collision was inevitable if he did not stop; and admits that at the speed he was traveling he could have brought his truck to a stop in time to avoid the accident-very quickly—within twenty feet. ...” The claim is stated strongly. The vice rests in this, that the record does not sustain the claim. The driver testified that when traveling seventeen to eighteen miles he could stop in twenty feet (Tr. 103); that he was so traveling when he was at the intersection (Tr. 150); that he there reduced his speed (Tr. 150); that when he saw the Ford swing into his path the witness blew his siren, put on both brakes, and swung to his right (Tr. 206-233) ; that when he so swung' the witness was at the point marked H-14 (Tr. 232); that is a point fifteen feet inside of the intersection and about thirty feet from the point of impact; that when the witness swung to his right was when he discovered that a collision was imminent (Tr. 206); at that same instant, so the testimony of that witness runs, the truck was moving thirteen miles per hour or less (Tr. 234); or, as the testimony of the driver of the Ford runs, the truck was then traveling about ten or fifteen miles per hour (Tr. 21). The record discloses no act of negligence on the part of the defendant.
A petition by respondent to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 24, 1928.