Donovan v. Hornaday

California Court of Appeal

Donovan v. Hornaday

38 P.2d 824, 3 Cal. App. 2d 103, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1144

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 15, 1934

DocketCiv. 8869

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 P.2d 824 (Donovan v. Hornaday) 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

Donovan v. Hornaday, 38 P.2d 824, 3 Cal. App. 2d 103, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1144 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff recovered judgment for injuries resulting from an accident in which she was struck by an automobile driven by defendant Mary B. Hornaday. The sufficiency of the evidence and propriety of instructions are the sole questions raised on this appeal.

The accident occurred after dark at Fourth and Spring Streets, in Los Angeles. Plaintiff left the northeast corner and started westerly across Spring Street in a pedestrian crosswalk. When at or near the most easterly rail of the northbound street car tracks she was struck by defendant’s automobile, which was traveling at a speed estimated at 17 to 30 miles per hour. There was ample evidence to support the implied finding that the defendant’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident and of plaintiff's injuries.

The jury was fully and correctly informed as to the law by the court, by instructions which embraced the theories of both sides, and it does not appear that any of the instructions given could have' confused or misled them. Nor does it appear that any of the instructions refused would have assisted the jury in its deliberations or have led to any result other than that attained.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Crail, J., concurred.

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

SCOTT, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff recovered judgment for injuries resulting from an accident in which she was struck by an automobile driven by defendant Mary B. Hornaday. The sufficiency of the evidence and propriety of instructions are the sole questions raised on this appeal.

The accident occurred after dark at Fourth and Spring Streets, in Los Angeles. Plaintiff left the northeast corner and started westerly across Spring Street in a pedestrian crosswalk. When at or near the most easterly rail of the northbound street car tracks she was struck by defendant’s automobile, which was traveling at a speed estimated at 17 to 30 miles per hour. There was ample evidence to support the implied finding that the defendant’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident and of plaintiff's injuries.

The jury was fully and correctly informed as to the law by the court, by instructions which embraced the theories of both sides, and it does not appear that any of the instructions given could have' confused or misled them. Nor does it appear that any of the instructions refused would have assisted the jury in its deliberations or have led to any result other than that attained.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Crail, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 P.2d 824, 3 Cal. App. 2d 103, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donovan-v-hornaday-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack