Court Opinion

ID: 9543733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:48:46.054255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:05.007084
License: Public Domain

NOUBSE, P. J.
I dissent. Plaintiff was walking on her right (the wrong) edge of a public street which had no sidewalk set aside for pedestrians. The center portion of the street was paved (with what it does not appear); the two shoulders were covered with a thinner layer of paving material. It was on the right-hand shoulder that plaintiff was walking on a dark rainy morning with no street lights to show her position.
The instruction that the statute relates, only to the “roadway” and does not prescribe on which side of a “highway” a pedestrian should walk is facetious. The statute is designed for the protection of the public—the motorist as well as the pedestrian. Here the motorist had every right to assume that no one would be walking on the right shoulder when a perfect place of safety was provided on the left shoulder.
A petition for a rehearing was denied August 12, 1953, and appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 10, 1953. Traynor, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.