Court Opinion

ID: 9568916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:08:36.559638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:14:38.248010
License: Public Domain

SEAWELL, J., Dissenting.
I dissent.
It seems clear that the order of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reversing the order of the superior court which directed the return of a verdict in favor of the defendant is sustained by the decisions of this court defining concurrent liability in personal negligence cases. The evidence in this case justifies the reversal of the order directing said verdict.
The facts are simple. The situs of the accident was within a residential section of the city of Selma at the intersection of McCall and Gaither Streets. McCall Street extends northerly and southerly. Gaither Street intersects it at right angles. Melvin Pelletier was traveling southerly on the right-hand side of said street approaching said intersecting street at a rate of speed estimated by the defendant at forty-five miles an hour and by another person who was less qualified to judge of said rate of speed at sixty miles per hour. Defendant Lewis was traveling northerly toward said intersecting street on the right-hand side of McCall Street. He was driving a Durant coach to which a trailer was attached. The coach and trailer measured twenty-seven feet in length. Plaintiff was the guest of Sid. Jensen, the latter being the owner and driver of a Ford coupe. Mr. Jensen had been following the defendant’s car and trailer for some three or four blocks at a distance of about seventy-five feet behind said car and trailer, both going at an even speed of approximately fifteen miles per hour. The defendant, nevertheless, had not observed that anyone was behind. When within twenty feet of the southerly line of Gaither Street defendant, according to his own testimony, put out his hand indicating a left-hand turn. He then proceeded to turn to the left. This was a violation of the California Vehicle Act, section 130, 1931, which requires that a driver shall give the *574proper signal continuously during the last fifty feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. Not only did the defendant fail to give the signal for the period required by law, but he admits that at the time he crossed the Gaither Street line and began to turn to the left and cut the intersection he did not take heed as to the position of the Pelletier car, which he had previously observed to be apparently one hundred and fifty feet north of the intersection and traveling at the rate of forty-five miles an hour or better, as against less than fifteen for defendant. The defendant again violated the California Vehicle Act by failing to pass to the right of the center of the intersection of said streets. He said he believed he could pass ahead of Pelletier safely. He had a clear view at all times of Pelletier’s car, which was approaching the intersection at a rapid speed. Jensen’s view was obstructed by the Lewis coach and trailer until it came within twenty feet of the Pelletier car immediately before the crash. The Pelletier car had been turned out of its course in order to avoid hitting the trailer which had not cleared the westerly half of McCall Street, the side upon which Pelletier was traveling. The evidence is that a portion of the coach had not passed entirely from McCall Street when Pelletier made a sudden turn to the east to avoid hitting said trailer which was passing south of the center of the intersection. Had Lewis observed the law and made the proper turn it is highly probable that no injury would have occurred. It seems reasonably certain that the plaintiff would not have been injured. Lewis would in all probability have paused and not attempted to cross in front of the Pelletier car. To so conclude is not indulging in mere speculation, but the deduction of a reasonable probability which may be predicated upon the probable and reasonable conduct of persons under the situation shown by the evidence to have existed. The plaintiff and the driver of the car in which he was riding were absolutely without fault. The defendant was also guilty of negligence in violating section 130a of the California Vehicle Act, which provides: “The driver of any vehicle upon a public highway before starting, turning or stopping such vehicle shall first see that such movement can be made in safety, and if it cannot be made in safety, shall wait until it can be made in safety; then, if the operation of any other vehicle may reasonably *575be affected by such movement, the driver shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle of the intention to make such movement.”
Defendant admits that he did not know the position of Pelletier at the time he commenced to make the left-hand turn. He testified that he observed the Pelletier car just after he started to make the left turn and he observed “that it was coming fast”. Defendant was in a position to have had a full view of the entire situation. He noted the speed at which Pelletier was traveling and notwithstanding all that he saw and knew he cut the intersection and brought about a perilous situation which caused Pelletier to veer to the east in order to avoid colliding with the trailer which resulted in an innocent traveler receiving a badly fractured skull, a broken leg and wounds and bruises.
The defendant was entitled to the protection which the observance of the law is designed to afford travelers. The question then is whether or not the negligence of the defendant, independently or concurrently with the negligence of Pelletier, proximately contributed to the injuries of plaintiff.
There can be no doubt and the majority opinion admits, that defendant was guilty of negligence. I cannot hold, as a matter of law, that the intervening negligence of Pelletier, assuming he was negligent, broke the line of causation. The jury could have reasonably found, from the above facts, that the negligence of defendant continued up until the time of the accident, and was at least one of the proximate causes thereof. Assuming that Pelletier was negligent and that his negligence was one of the proximate causes of the accident that would, of course, not relieve the defendant from liability if his negligence also contributed to the accident and was one of the proximate causes thereof. Before it can be held that the intervening negligent act of Pelletier broke the line of causation it must appear that defendant’s negligence was so disconnected in time and nature as to make it plain that the damage occasioned was in no way the natural or probable consequence of the original negligence of defendant. (Springer v. Pacific Fruit Exchange, 92 Cal. App. 732, 739 [268 Pac. 951].) This was a question of fact that should have been left to the jury. See, also, Pastene v. Adams, 49 Cal. 87; Merrill v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric *576Co., 158 Cal. 499 [111 Pac. 534, 139 Am. St. Rep. 134, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 559]; Sawyer v. Southern California Gas Co., 206 Cal. 366 [274 Pac. 544]. One of the most recent statements of the rule is to be found in Lacy v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 220 Cal. 97, 98 [29 Pac. (2d) 781], where it is stated:
“The authorities in this state hold that where the original negligence continues and exists up to the time of the injury, the concurrent negligent act of a third person causing the injury will not be regarded as an independent act of negligence, but the two concurring acts of negligence will be held to be the proximate cause of the injury. ... In such a case either of the negligent persons would be liable to the plaintiff for his injuries.”
I think the principle there enunciated is clearly applicable to the facts of this case and that it was ‘therefore error to take this case from the jury.