Court Opinion

ID: 9528426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:41:00.465737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:51.580337
License: Public Domain

THOMPSON, J., Dissenting.
I dissent.
The question concerning the liability of the defendant-appellant is very simple and may very properly be stated as follows: May it be considered guilty of negligence in maintaining an electric light pole inside the curb line of a street, and sixteen feet from the curb line of an intersecting street where the first-mentioned street is narrowed at the intersection? In other words, would the ordinarily reasonable man, guided by those considerations of care and prudence which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs have felt compelled to locate the pole elsewhere, or would he have been content to locate it off and away from the highway resting upon the assurance that those who were to make use of the street would recognize the pavement and curb lines, as a natural barrier beyond which they should not stray? I am compelled to conclude that ordinary prudence would dictate only that the pole should be located off and away from that portion constructed for vehicular traffic, and that negligence may not be predicated upon any such location. I believe that the principle announced in Waldorf v. City of Alhambra, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 522 [45 Pac. (2d) 207], and supported by the authorities therein cited, is applicable in the present case and should be controlling. Barrett v. Southern Pacific Co., *67207 Cal. 154 [277 Pac. 481], is no comfort to plaintiff for the very patent reason that there the obstruction was maintained in the middle of the highway.
Rehearing denied. Thompson, J., voted for a rehearing.