Barrington v. Sarles

California Court of Appeal

Barrington v. Sarles

267 P. 585, 92 Cal. App. 5, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 800

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 17, 1928

DocketDocket No. 5473.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 P. 585 (Barrington v. Sarles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrington v. Sarles, 267 P. 585, 92 Cal. App. 5, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 800 (Cal. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

*6 STEPHENS, J., pro tem.

This case was tried by the This court without the aid o£ a jury and judgment went for plaintiff for the sum of $415.05 and costs. Defendant appeals from the judgment.

Defendant was driving from a private driveway into a main boulevard. Plaintiff approached, traveling upon the boulevard. Defendant’s machine was partly across the road, and in endeavoring to avoid it plaintiff’s car skidded against a tree and a piece of timber lying by the roadside and into a concrete ditch which ran along the edge of the road, to the damage of his automobile. The court found that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, and the only question in the case for us to decide relates to such finding. This question is regarding the speed at which plaintiff’s car was traveling. In the circumstances of this case plaintiff was not negligent per seif he was not exceeding thirty-five miles per hour. Having carefully read the evidence, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that plaintiff’s speed was not in excess of that rate.

Judgment affirmed.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*6 STEPHENS, J., pro tem.

This case was tried by the This court without the aid o£ a jury and judgment went for plaintiff for the sum of $415.05 and costs. Defendant appeals from the judgment.

Defendant was driving from a private driveway into a main boulevard. Plaintiff approached, traveling upon the boulevard. Defendant’s machine was partly across the road, and in endeavoring to avoid it plaintiff’s car skidded against a tree and a piece of timber lying by the roadside and into a concrete ditch which ran along the edge of the road, to the damage of his automobile. The court found that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, and the only question in the case for us to decide relates to such finding. This question is regarding the speed at which plaintiff’s car was traveling. In the circumstances of this case plaintiff was not negligent per seif he was not exceeding thirty-five miles per hour. Having carefully read the evidence, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that plaintiff’s speed was not in excess of that rate.

Judgment affirmed.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 P. 585, 92 Cal. App. 5, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrington-v-sarles-calctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack