Court Opinion

ID: 9633868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:04:21.124672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:44.456012
License: Public Domain

DOOLING, J.
I dissent. The new trial was granted on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. This means that if a jury could reasonably find that appellant was guilty of negligence on the evidence presented the order granting the new trial must be affirmed. (Brooks v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 27 Cal.2d 305, 307 [163 P.2d 689].) Passing, without deciding, the question whether appellant’s conduct was negligent as a matter of law under Vehicle Code, section 582, I cannot agree that it could not reasonably be found to be negligent as a matter of fact.
The majority opinion concedes (citing eases) that if appellant had stopped his car in the identical position to take a nap, to help a child find a sweater, or to look at the scenery he would have been guilty of negligence as a matter of law. The hazard to oncoming traffic was exactly the same in this ease and yet the majority opinion concludes that the creation of the identical hazard could not even constitute negligence in fact because the purpose of stopping was to make a U-turn. I am satisfied that the evidence presented fact questions on negligence .and proximate cause.
I would affirm the order.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 12/1957. Carter, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.