Court Opinion

ID: 9630048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:58:35.215264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:33.147901
License: Public Domain

SPENCE, J.
This is a consolidated appeal by plaintiffs in two personal injury actions which were separately tried but which arose out of the same accident. It is submitted on two separate settled statements, which are substantially the same in their presentation of the evidence and are so treated by counsel for plaintiffs in discussing the legal points in the joint briefs presented on plaintiffs’ behalf. Plaintiff Doran appeals from an order granting a new trial after judgment in her favor. Plaintiff Bessette appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants.
In the Doran case the trial court instructed the jury on the last clear chance doctrine, and then granted a new trial solely on the ground that it had erred in giving that instruction. In the Bessette case the trial court refused to instruct on that doctrine. Plaintiffs contend that the last clear chance instruction was properly given in the Doran case, and that therefore the order granting defendants’ motion for a new trial in that case should be reversed. They further contend that the requested instruction on the last clear chance doctrine should have been given in the Bessette case, and that there*481fore the judgment in favor of defendants in that ease should be reversed. While defendants make no objection to the form of plaintiffs’ requested instructions, they maintain that the evidence was insufficient to justify the giving of the last clear chance instruction in either case, and that therefore the order and judgment should be affirmed. The evidence was substantially the same in both cases but viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs (Rodabaugh v. Tekus, 39 Cal.2d 290, 291 [246 P.2d 663]; Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, 40 Cal.2d 614, 617 [255 P.2d 785]), we have nevertheless concluded that defendants’ position must be sustained.
On March 17, 1950, about 7:30 p. m., plaintiffs were struck by defendants’ electric overhead trolley bus as they were crossing Union Street at a point approximately 120 feet west of the intersection with Fillmore Street, in San Francisco. Plaintiff Jules Bessette, accompanied by plaintiff Jeanne Doran, had parked his automobile on the south side of Union Street, about 100 feet west of Fillmore. Union Street is relatively narrow, being 44 feet 9 inches from curb to curb, and there were cars parked at the curbs on both sides. After leaving their car and proceeding west on the sidewalk about a car’s length, plaintiffs stepped into Union Street intending to cross the street to a theatre on the opposite (north) side. Defendants’ trolley bus, traveling west on Union Street, had crossed Fillmore and stopped in front of a drugstore on the northwest corner of the intersection. There were two sets of streetcar tracks on Union Street, and the bus was stopped parallel to the curb with its right wheels just to the right of the most northerly rail of the car tracks. Plaintiffs testified that after they had stepped into Union Street and were a few feet from the south curb, they stopped, “looked around,” observed the bus stopped to their right at the corner but saw no moving traffic, and then proceeded straight, not diagonally, across the street. When they reached the center of the street and were between the two sets of tracks, they looked again to the right and saw the bus moving in their direction. When plaintiff Bessette saw the bus for the second time, he “could not tell if it moved any distance from the point where he first saw it when it was stopped.” Plaintiff Doran testified: “When I was in the middle of the street, I don’t know how far the bus was from me. I know the bus was going in my direction. ... I cannot tell you if it had gone half way. I don’t know if it was as close as 10 *482feet to me when I saw it the second time. As I was crossing the street, I know the bus was coming in my direction but I don’t know whether the bus was going to stop or would continue to go along.” Neither plaintiff looked-again in the direction of the bus, but they continued to walk into its path. Their memory of events ends there.
The bus driver testified that he was traveling between 15 to 20 miles per hour when he first saw plaintiffs running diagonally across the street. At that time they were 15 to 20 feet ahead of the bus, 3 feet to its left and in the center of the street, looking straight ahead in the direction in which they were going. The bus headlights were on low beam. The street lights and the theatre marquee and sign lights were burning. Looking ahead from his stopped position at the corner in front of the drugstore, the bus driver could see parked cars the full length of the block on both sides of the street; and there was nothing in the street to obstruct his view. After starting the bus, he traveled some two or three coach lengths (a coach length is 35 feet) before he saw plaintiffs. He then immediately applied his brakes and swerved to the left, but the right front half of the bus struck plaintiffs. The bus traveled 4 to 6 feet between the point of impact and the stop. Traveling at the speed of 15 to 20 miles per hour when he first saw plaintiffs, he stated that he could stop the bus within 23 to 26 feet, including reaction time. He did not sound his horn but used both hands to turn the steering wheel in an effort to avoid striking plaintiffs. He could not state why he did not see plaintiffs sooner in the street, except for these prevailing circumstances: plaintiffs were wearing semi-dark clothing—plaintiff Doran in a dark brown coat, white blouse and beige skirt, and plaintiff Bessette in a gray suit and “sort of brown” overcoat; the stores on both sides of the street, excepting the corner drugstore and the theatre, both on the north side, were dark; and the southerly part of Union Street was a dark background at approximately the spot where he first saw plaintiffs.
It thus appears that the only real conflict in the evidence was on the question of whether plaintiffs walked straight, or ran diagonally, across the street and into the path of the bus. Accepting plaintiffs’ testimony, it will be assumed that they walked straight across. But plaintiffs’ own testimony further showed that they did not stop at any time in making such crossing, and that they saw the approaching bus when they were at the center of the street. Their own exhibits *483(plaintiff Doran’s Exhibits 1, 4, 5, and 7 and plaintiff Bessette’s Exhibit 1) left no donbt as to the place where the accident occurred. The point of impact was shown to have been at a point near the center of the street, and no further north than the center of the westbound tracks, which was approximately 6 feet from the center of the street. Hence plaintiffs’ own testimony affirmatively showed that there could not possibly have been any appreciable interval between the time that they left a place of safety and the time that the accident occurred. In this situation it is understandable that plaintiffs should have admitted that they did not know how far the bus was from them when they were at the center of the street or how many steps they took after passing the center of the street; and in the light of these admissions and the abovementioned admitted facts, any testimony of plaintiffs to the effect that the bus was still at the corner (about 120 feet away) and was just starting to move at the time that plaintiffs crossed the center of the street is inherently improbable as it cannot be reconciled with the happening of the accident. Such testimony therefore cannot be deemed to be substantial evidence on that subject.
Whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance applies in a particular case depends wholly upon the existence or nonexistence of the elements necessary to bring it into play. The doctrine presupposes: “(1) That plaintiff has been negligent and, as a result thereof, is in a position of danger from which he cannot escape by the exercise of ordinary care; and this includes not only where it is physically impossible for him to escape, but also in cases where he is totally unaware of his danger and for that reason unable to escape; (2) that defendant has knowledge that the plaintiff is in such a situation, and knows, or in the exercise of ordinary care should know, that plaintiff cannot escape from such situation; and (3) has the last clear chance to avoid the accident by exercising ordinary care, and fails to exercise the same, and the accident results thereby, and plaintiff is injured as the proximate result of such failure.” (Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, supra, 40 Cal.2d 614, 619.)  If any one of these elements is absent, the doctrine does not apply and the case is governed by the ordinary rules of negligence and contributory negligence. (Palmer v. Tschudy, 191 Cal. 696, 700 [218 P. 36].)
Defendants contend that the doctrine is not applicable here ■because plaintiffs were aware of their dangerous position and *484could have saved themselves by the exercise of ordinary care Concededly, plaintiffs were guilty of negligence in crossing the street in the middle of the block directly in the path of the oncoming bus. They saw the bus shortly after leaving the curb. They again looked to their right and saw the bus approaching when they were in the center of the street, but nevertheless they continued on their way without again glancing in that direction. Defendants therefore maintain that it cannot be said that plaintiffs, after seeing the approaching bus and then stepping into its path, were “totally unaware” of their dangerous position within the purview of the last clear chance doctrine.
In their effort to answer defendants’ contention relating to the first required element, plaintiffs apparently realize that they cannot claim that they were in a position of danger from which it was “physically impossible” for them to escape until after they had passed the center of the street and had stepped directly into the path of the oncoming bus. They therefore rely mainly upon their claim that they were “totally unaware” of their danger. This latter claim finds no support in the evidence. Plaintiffs concededly knew of the presence of the bus as they started to cross the street, and also knew that it was moving, toward them when they again looked to the right while near the center of the relatively narrow street. With this knowledge, they proceeded to step directly into the path of the oncoming bus; and in the light of this admitted knowledge, it cannot be said that plaintiffs were “totally unaware” of their danger.  Total unawareness of danger, as contemplated by the doctrine, does not exist where the injured party is fully aware of the approach of an oncoming vehicle up to the instant before the collision and then shifts his attention to look in some other direction while proceeding directly into its path.
Plaintiffs have cited no ease in which the last clear chance doctrine has been held applicable to any comparable factual situation. On the contrary, in a case which is closely parallel on its facts, it was held that the doctrine was not applicable. (Palmer v. Tschudy, supra, 191 Cal. 696.) There the plaintiff, a pedestrian, upon reaching the curb, glanced to her right and saw defendant’s automobile approaching at a distance of approximately 200 feet. She started to cross the street and when she had taken two or three steps from the curb, she again glanced to her right and saw defendant’s automobile still approaching and, of course, nearer. Without *485again looking at the approaching automobile, she proceeded to cross the street and was struck and injured. The trial court there instructed on the last clear chance doctrine, and the judgment in favor of plaintiff was reversed because of the error in giving such an instruction. This court recognized that the last clear chance doctrine may be applied when the injured party is totally unaware of the danger but held that “plaintiff was aware of it from the beginning.” (P. 701.)
Plaintiffs cite numerous eases where the last clear chance doctrine has been held applicable but all are distinguishable on their facts. Some of these cases involved situations where' there was evidence to show that the injured person was in fact “totally unaware” of the danger. In Girdner v. Union Oil Co., 216 Cal. 197 [13 P.2d 915], the trial court found upon sufficient evidence that “up to the time of the collision, he (plaintiff) did not see and was totally oblivious of the approach of the truck, and the danger that confronted him. ’ ’ (P. 200.) In Center v. Yellow Cab Co., 216 Cal. 205 [13 P.2d 918], the evidence showed that the plaintiff “did not see the approach of the automobile that struck him. ” (P. 206.) And in the more recent decision of Peterson v. Burkhalter, 38 Cal.2d 107 [237 P.2d 977], there was evidence to show that the injured boy did not see the defendant’s oncoming automobile. The boy in approaching the intersection on his motor scooter and while 75 feet therefrom was “looking over his right shoulder in the opposite direction,” and as he neared the intersection he “was still looking over his right shoulder.” (P.109.) Other cases cited by plaintiffs involved situations where there was evidence to show that the vehicle in which the injured person was traveling was either stalled or stopped practically directly in the path in which defendant was traveling. (Selinsky v. Olsen, 38 Cal.2d 102 [237 P.2d 645]; Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, supra, 40 Cal.2d 614; Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 40 Cal.2d 630 [255 P.2d 795].) It thus appears that in each of the cited cases there was evidence from which the trier of the facts could find that plaintiff’s negligence had placed him in a position of danger from which he could not escape by the exercise of ordinary care either (1) because it was “physically impossible for him to escape” or (2) because he was “totally unaware of his danger and for that reason unable to escape.” Under such circumstances, there was no lack of evidence to support a finding of the presence of the first required element for the application of the last clear *486chance doctrine. Of course, in each of said cases, it was also held that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant had actual knowledge that plaintiff was in such a situation, and that defendant thereafter had a “last clear chance to avoid the accident by exercising ordinary care” but failed to do so.
It would serve no useful purpose to review all of the authorities dealing with the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine. Many of them have been reviewed in the recent decisions of this court, and it has been recognized that some cases have “presented close questions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant the application of the doctrine.” (Rodabaugh v. Tekus, supra, 39 Cal.2d 290, 297.) It was further stated in the earlier case of Girdner v. Union Oil Co., supra, 216 Cal. 197, 202-203, that any “apparent confusion which exists in some of the decisions upon the subject arises in the application of the law to the facts, but as to the rule itself there is little or no confusion.” A summary of the rules established by the recent cases may serve to dispel any apparent confusion that may be said to exist by reason of certain earlier decisions.
The ordinary case presenting the issues of negligence and contributory negligence is governed by the traditional rules which cover those issues, and which make contributory negligence a bar to recovery by the injured party.  The last clear chance doctrine, which relieves an injured party of the results of his own contributory negligence and permits him to recover despite such negligence, is applicable only in the exceptional case in which there is substantial evidence to support a favorable finding on each of the several required elements above enumerated.  And as above indicated, if any one of these elements is absent, the doctrine does not apply and the ease is governed by the ordinary rules of negligence and contributory negligence. (Palmer v. Tschudy, supra, 191 Cal. 696, 700; Rodabaugh v. Tekus, supra, 39 Cal.2d 290, 293; also Girdner v. Union Oil Co., supra, 216 Cal. 197, 202; Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, supra, 40 Cal.2d 614, 619; Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, supra, 40 Cal.2d 630, 635.)  In this connection, it should be emphasized that the “continuing negligence” of the injured party does not deprive him of the benefit of the last clear chance doctrine if all the required elements for the application of that doctrine are present, for such “continuing negligence” ordinarily exists in all last clear chance cases. (Girdner v. *487Union Oil Co., supra, 216 Cal. 197, 203; Center v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, 216 Cal. 205, 207-208; Selinsky v. Olsen, supra, 38 Cal.2d 102, 104-105; Peterson v. Burkhalter, supra, 38 Cal.2d 107, 111.)
The question of whether there is any substantial evidence, conflicting or otherwise, which could justify the application of the last clear chance doctrine in a given case, is a question of law; and in the absence of such evidence, it is error for the trial court to instruct the jury concerning that doctrine. (Wallis v. Southern Pac. Co., 184 Cal. 662, 672 [195 P. 408, 15 A.L.R. 117]; Rodabaugh v. Tekus, supra, 39 Cal.2d 290, 297; Johnson v. Sacramento Northern Ry., 54 Cal.App.2d 528, 543 [129 P.2d 503]; Dalley v. Williams, 73 Cal.App.2d 427, 431-432 [166 P.2d 595].)  On the other hand, if there is such substantial evidence, conflicting or otherwise, the question of whether the defendant should be held to have had a last clear chance to avoid the accident is a question of fact to be determined by the jury under appropriate instructions. (Girdner v. Union Oil Co., supra, 216 Cal. 197, 204; Center v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, 216 Cal. 205, 208; Selinsky v. Olsen, supra, 38 Cal.2d 102, 106; Peterson v. Burkhalter, supra, 38 Cal.2d 107, 113; Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, supra, 40 Cal.2d 614, 619, 622-623; Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, supra, 40 Cal.2d 630, 635-636, 638.)
While the determination of the question of law above-mentioned is not free from difficulty in certain borderline cases, the cited authorities show that the courts have not hesitated to hold that the doctrine could be applied whenever it may be fairly said that there is substantial evidence, conflicting or otherwise, upon which to base a finding of the presence of each of the required elements.  These authorities recognize, however, that it is only the exceptional case to which the doctrine may be applied, and that the mere fact that there is ample evidence to show that a defendant is negligent, without substantial evidence of the existence of the other required elements, will not warrant the application of the last clear chance doctrine. (Rodabaugh v. Tekus, supra, 39 Cal.2d 290, 293.)
The underlying basis for the application of this doctrine, which permits an injured person to recover despite his continuing and contributory negligence, is that defendant was afforded a last chance and a clear chance to avoid the accident after defendant had discovered that plaintiff was *488in. a helpless situation. It is based upon the humanitarian concept that the fault of the injured party should not relieve the erring defendant of his liability if defendant is afforded such last clear chance to avoid the accident after actually discovering that it is too late for the injured party to avail himself of any similar chance.  But the chance which is afforded to defendant must be something more than a bare possible chance. It must be not only a last chance but a clear chance, following actual knowledge of plaintiff’s helplessness, to avoid the accident by the exercise of ordinary care; and, by its very terms, the doctrine excludes from its application any case in which plaintiff’s state of helplessness, resulting from his own negligence, is created so nearly simultaneously with the happening of the accident that neither party may be fairly said to have thereafter a last clear chance to avoid the accident. (Rodabaugh v. Tekus, supra, 39 Cal.2d 290, 294-296; Poncino v. Reid-Murdock & Co., 136 Cal.App. 223, 229-232 [28 P.2d 932]; Johnson v. Sacramento Northern Ry., supra, 54 Cal.App.2d 528, 532, 542.)
In applying the foregoing principles, it is helpful to bear in mind the decisions which rationalize the last clear chance doctrine in terms of proximate cause. (Girdner v. Union Oil Co., supra, 216 Cal. 197, 204; Center v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, 216 Cal. 205, 207-208; Sparks v. Redinger, ante, p. 121 [279 P.2d 971].)  As was said in the Center case at pages 207-208: “The doctrine of (plaintiff’s) continuing negligence has no application unless the negligence is the proximate cause of the injury.  If all the elements of the doctrine of the last clear chance are present and plaintiff’s negligence becomes remote in causation, then the doctrine applies. If, on the other hand, any of the elements of the doctrine are lacking, courts have declared, and rightfully so, that plaintiff’s negligence being continuous and contributory with that of defendant bars a recovery.” (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the doctrine may be applied only if it may fairly be said that plaintiff’s negligence was “remote in causation. ’ ’  What then is the main factor which may make plaintiff’s negligence, in the eyes of the law, a remote cause rather than a proximate cause of the accident 1 It is obviously the existence of some such appreciable interval after the time that plaintiff has reached a state of helplessness as to enable defendant to gain actual knowledge of plaintiff’s state of helplessness, and to have a last clear chance to avoid the accident. And as above indicated, such state of helplessness *489is reached only when plaintiff’s negligence has placed him “in a position of danger from which he cannot escape by the exercise of ordinary care” either (1) because it is “physically impossible for him to escape” or (2) because he is “totally unaware of his danger and for that reason unable to escape.”  Accordingly, when a plaintiff is actually aware of the approach of an oncoming vehicle and when his negligent act, which removes him from a position of safety and into a position of danger, occurs almost simultaneously with the happening of the accident, there can be no such appreciable interval thereafter as to enable defendant to gain knowledge of plaintiff’s helplessness and to have a last clear chance to avoid the accident. In such case, the negligence of plaintiff cannot be deemed to be “remote in causation.” On the contrary, such negligence is, in the eyes of the law, a proximate cause of the accident, and the last clear chance doctrine has no application.
In the light of the above discussion, it appears clear that the eases involved on this appeal presented no substantial evidence upon which to predicate the application of the last clear chance doctrine. We have heretofore indicated that there was no evidence to show that plaintiffs were totally unaware of the danger, for they testified that they saw the approaching bus twice after leaving the south curb—first immediately after leaving the south curb and again when in the center of the street. It is also clear that plaintiffs cannot successfully claim that defendants had a last clear chance to avoid the accident after plaintiffs had left their position of safety near the center of the street and stepped into a position of danger.  Plaintiffs were not in a position of danger nor in a state of helplessness, within the meaning of the doctrine, until they had reached a point where they could no longer escape by the exercise of ordinary care.  As was said in Dalley v. Williams, supra, 73 Cal.App.2d 427, at page 435, “the term ‘place of safety’ ordinarily includes the position of the plaintiff while he is merely approaching the place of danger, and so long as he is only approaching but is not actually in a position of danger, the plaintiff cannot invoke the doctrine.”
The distance from the center of the street to the north curb was but 22 feet 4y2 inches. There were automobiles parked along the curb, thus leaving only the intervening space for the bus to operate along the northerly half of the street, where the accident occurred at a point within *490a few feet from the center line of the street. Plaintiffs’ state of helplessness was created only by their act of leaving their position of safety near the center of the street and stepping directly into the path of danger. Under any view of the evidence, plaintiffs could not have taken more than two or three steps after leaving a place of safety and before the accident happened. Therefore plaintiffs’ act of negligence in leaving a place of safety and stepping directly into the path of the oncoming bus necessarily occurred almost simultaneously with the happening of the accident. Under these circumstances, such negligence cannot be deemed “remote in causation,” and it cannot be said that defendants thereafter had a last clear chance to avoid the accident. We therefore conclude that in each of these cases the trial court correctly determined by the challenged ruling that as a matter of law the record presented no substantial evidence to justify the application of the last clear chance doctrine.
In Doran v. City & County of San Francisco, S. F. 19190, the order granting a new trial is affirmed. In Bessette v. City & County of San Francisco, S. F. 19191, the judgment is affirmed.
Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., and Schauer, J., concurred.