Court Opinion

ID: 9855624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:28:21.153215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:16.507932
License: Public Domain

MARKS, J., Concurring.
I concur.
In concurring I wish to place emphasis on that phase of the case involving instruction numbered two in the foregoing opinion.
*519That instruction in effect told the jury that the fact that Kenneth Layton had no operator’s license was prima facie evidence of his incompetence as a driver. That instruction should not have been given. The competency of Layton as a driver was entirely immaterial to the issues of the case. An incompetent driver may be careful and prudent at the time and place of an accident. A competent driver may be guilty of negligence that proximately caused an accident. (Power v. Crown Stage Co., 82 Cal. App. 660 [256 Pac. 457].) In this case the sole questions to be decided in the trial court were: Was Layton guilty of negligence that was the proximate or concurring cause of young Strandt’s injury, and, was defendant guilty of negligence that was the proximate or concurring cause of these injuries? Contributory negligence of plaintiff was eliminated by the evidence. The answers to these questions should have been found in the evidence showing the conduct of the parties at the time and place of the collision and not upon the evidence of the competency or incompetency of either driver.
The instruction was worse than meaningless unless it was intended to permit the jury to infer negligence and proximate cause on the part of Layton from the fact that he had no operator’s license. If such an inference can be drawn, a plaintiff would only have to prove his damage and that a defendant driver was unlicensed to make out a prima facie case. If such inferences be permitted the converse should be true and the fact that a driver was licensed would be evidence of his competency, his lack of negligence and lack of proximate cause. Therefore, the possession of an operator’s license by a defendant would be evidence that he was not negligent at the time and place of the accident. Under such a theory, evidence that a driver was licensed would support a judgment in his favor even though all the evidence of his conduct at the time of the accident showed him alone guilty of negligence that proximately caused it. I cannot subscribe to any such doctrine.
The instruction given requires the trier of fact to infer from the fact that Layton was unlicensed, (1) that he was incompetent; (2) that from such incompetency he was negligent at the time and place of the accident; (3) that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. There is no rule of law that permits such piling of inference on *520inference nor any rule drawn from experience that would justify it. The reasonable inferences to be drawn from the fact that a driver is unlicensed should be (1) that he has carelessly failed to apply for a license; (2) that he has carelessly permitted his license to expire from lapse of time without securing a new one; or (3) that his license has been suspended or revoked. Evidence supporting this latter inference is not admissible in a civil suit. (Sec. 754, Vehicle Code.) I cannot see how negligence and proximate cause can be predicated on any such inferences.
If it should be assumed that the lack of an operator’s license justifies the inference of the lack of competency of a driver, still the instruction should not have been given. In this kind of a case the courts are not interested in the competency or incompetency of a driver but only in his actions at the time and place of the accident. The question of his competency or incompetency is wholly immaterial to the questions at issue, namely, negligence and proximate cause. This rule has long been established in California.
In the case of Towle v. Pacific Imp. Co., 98 Cal. 342 [33 Pac. 207], the plaintiff sought to recover damages for the death of his wife alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant’s servant in causing or permitting a team of horses to run over her. The trial court permitted defendant to prove that its employee “was a good first-class driver, careful in handling horses, and that during the four years he had been in the employ of defendant, he had never been guilty of any mismanagement or carelessness in the conduct or care of the team”. The judgment in favor of defendant was reversed because of the error in admitting this evidence. The Supreme Court held that the question of liability could only be decided on evidence of the driver’s actions at the time and place of the accident and not on evidence of his character, competency or experience.
In the case of Cunningham v. Los Angeles Ry. Co., 115 Cal. 561 [47 Pac. 452], a father brought suit for damages caused by the death of his infant son who was injured by one of defendant’s ears. In considering the question now before this court, it was there said:
“The jury were instructed that, in determining whether the defendant was negligent in not stopping its car so as to avoid the injury, they had the right to take into considera*521tion the fact that the motorman ‘had only been at work about twelve days, according to his own testimony, and was a new hand on the road’. . . .
“It is objected that the instruction was erroneous, as submitting to the jury an element which could have no competent bearing upon the question whether defendant was guilty of the degree of negligence with which it was chargeable under the circumstances of the case; and this objection must, we think, be sustained.
“Defendant was responsible to plaintiff for a want of ordinary care only, and whether it was in the exercise of such care was to be determined from a consideration of what actually occurred at the time of the alleged negligent act, regardless of any fact affecting the general character of the servant for skill or proficiency in the discharge of his duty. The question was, Did the servant exercise ordinary care to avoid the injury? If he did, the plaintiff could not recover, no matter how wanting the servant may have been in general competency; while if he did not exercise such care, plaintiff was entitled to recover, even if the servant possessed the utmost degree of efficiency and skill in the performance of his duty. The sole question, therefore, was, What was the conduct of the servant at the time ? and this to be unembarrassed by any consideration of his general qualifications.”
The same question was before the Supreme Court in the case of Langford v. San Diego Elec. Ry. Co., 174 Cal. 729 [164 Pac. 398], where it was said:
“Among other instructions, the court gave the following: ‘You are further instructed that it is and was the duty of the defendant corporation to employ competent and careful persons to manage its street-cars, and that it was and is the duty of the motorman in charge of the street-ears of the defendant to exercise proper care, and keep a proper lookout, in order to avoid, if possible, all accidents and injury, and the defendant would be liable for any injury proximately caused by its failure in these respects. ’ The court refused to comply with the defendant’s request to instruct the jury: ‘ Plaintiffs do not here complain that the motorman on defendant’s west-bound street-car was incompetent or inexperienced, and the only question for you to consider with reference to him is whether on the occasion of the accident he acted with the care and prudence which a reasonably prudent man under *522the circumstances would have exercised. ’ The appellant assigns as error the giving of the one and the refusal to give the other instruction. These assignments are well taken. The question of the competency or ineompetency of the motorman was not an issue, nor could it have been made an issue, in the case. The great weight of authority supports the rule that in actions of this kind the competency of the person claimed to have acted negligently, or his reputation for care, is not a subject of inquiry. . . . Under instruction 13, the jury was authorized to hold the defendant liable because it had employed an incompetent motorman, even though the evidence of the facts surrounding the accident may not have been sufficient, in and of itself, to show that the motorman had failed to exercise due care. The vice of the instruction is not remedied by the concluding words that ‘ defendant would be liable for any injury proximately caused by its failure in these respects’. The argument is that the mere employment of an incompetent motorman could not proximately cause the injury, if the motorman was not negligent on the particular occasion. But the answer to this suggestion is that the natural effect of testimony of ineompetency is to lead the jury to infer that the person whose conduct is in question failed to act properly at the time and in the very matter under investigation. (Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 65.) The error is emphasized by the court’s refusal to give the instruction requested by the appellant. The requested charge was designed to limit the jury, on the question of the defendant’s negligence, to an examination of the conduct of the motorman at the very time in controversy. As we have seen, the defendant was entitled to have the inquiry so limited. ’ ’
The cases of Spear v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 16 Cal. App. 637 [117 Pac. 956] , Carr v. Stern, 17 Cal. App. 397 [120 Pac. 35] , Power v. Crown Stage Co., supra, and Hanchett v. Wiseley, 107 Cal. App. 230 [290 Pac. 311], adhere to the same doctrine. The only vehicle case cited to the contrary is Moore v. Re, 131 Cal. App. 557 [22 Pac. (2d) 45]. In view of the firmly settled rule announced in the foregoing eases, which are not considered in the Moore ease, I cannot agree with the conclusions there reached. The following cases lend support to this conclusion: Shimoda v. Bundy, 24 Cal. App. 675 [142 Pac. 109]; Roos v. Loeser, 41 Cal. App. 782 [183 Pac. 204]; Arrelano v. Jorgensen, 52 Cal. *523App. 622 [199 Pac. 855]; Page v. Mayors, 191 Cal. 263 [216 Pac. 31].
The case of Owens v. Carmichael’s U—Drive Autos, Inc., 116 Cal. App. 348 [2 Pac. (2d) 580], contains nothing contrary to the conclusion reached by this court. The defendant in that case was engaged in the business of renting automobiles without drivers. It rented a car to Max Watson, an unlicensed driver, who negligently injured plaintiff. Defendant’s agent knew that Watson had no operator’s license. The District Court of Appeal held that this knowledge was sufficient to put defendant on its inquiry as to the competency of Watson and that instead of instructing a verdict for defendant the trial court should have left to the jury the determination of the question of whether or not defendant was negligent in permitting Watson to drive the automobile on the public highways without being accompanied by a licensed driver. This conclusion is logical but it is far from holding that the lack of an operator’s license is evidence of that driver’s incompetence, his negligence and that such negligence was the proximate cause of an accident.
In my opinion it was error to give the instruction here discussed. The trial court by granting the motion for new trial impliedly found that this error was prejudicial. In view of the facts of this case, that conclusion should not be disturbed here. (Olinger v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 7 Cal. App. (2d) 484 [46 Pac. (2d) 774].)
Barnard, P. J., concurred in the foregoing opinions.
A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on January 26,1939.