Covel v. Price

California Court of Appeal

Covel v. Price

179 P. 540, 39 Cal. App. 646, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 246

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 7, 1919

DocketCiv. No. 2061.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 179 P. 540 (Covel v. Price) 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

Covel v. Price, 179 P. 540, 39 Cal. App. 646, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 246 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SLOANE, J.

Defendant has appealed from a judgment awarding damages against him for an automobile collision. The appeal is taken under the alternative method, and on the sole ground of insufficiency of the evidence. Appellant has failed to print in his brief, or in a supplement thereto, the portion of the record which he desires to call to the attention of the court, as required by- section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have read the transcript of the evidence, however, and fail to find in it any comfort for appellant.

*647 The evidence is conflicting, as it usually is in an automobile accident ease, but the weight of it is unquestionably with the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his witnesses substantially agreed in testifying that the automobile in which plaintiff was riding reached the street intersection first, driving at about twelve miles per hour; that defendant was approaching from the left, at a speed of from thirty to thirty-five miles per hour, and ran in front of the machine in which plaintiff was a passenger, skidded and stopped, and was, in consequence, then run into by plaintiff’s machine with the resultant injury to plaintiff. If the court accepted plaintiff’s version of the facts, which it apparently did, showing that plaintiff’s automobile had the right of way, and that defendant was going at an excessive rate of speed for the time and place, the conclusion as to defendant’s negligence as the cause of the accident was amply sustained.

The judgment is affirmed.

Finlayson, P. J., and Thomas, J., concurred.

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

SLOANE, J.

Defendant has appealed from a judgment awarding damages against him for an automobile collision. The appeal is taken under the alternative method, and on the sole ground of insufficiency of the evidence. Appellant has failed to print in his brief, or in a supplement thereto, the portion of the record which he desires to call to the attention of the court, as required by- section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have read the transcript of the evidence, however, and fail to find in it any comfort for appellant.

*647 The evidence is conflicting, as it usually is in an automobile accident ease, but the weight of it is unquestionably with the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his witnesses substantially agreed in testifying that the automobile in which plaintiff was riding reached the street intersection first, driving at about twelve miles per hour; that defendant was approaching from the left, at a speed of from thirty to thirty-five miles per hour, and ran in front of the machine in which plaintiff was a passenger, skidded and stopped, and was, in consequence, then run into by plaintiff’s machine with the resultant injury to plaintiff. If the court accepted plaintiff’s version of the facts, which it apparently did, showing that plaintiff’s automobile had the right of way, and that defendant was going at an excessive rate of speed for the time and place, the conclusion as to defendant’s negligence as the cause of the accident was amply sustained.

The judgment is affirmed.

Finlayson, P. J., and Thomas, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 P. 540, 39 Cal. App. 646, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/covel-v-price-calctapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack