Hayward v. Downer

California Court of Appeal

Hayward v. Downer

224 P. 265, 65 Cal. App. 450, 1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 598

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 26, 1924

DocketCiv. No. 4771.

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 224 P. 265 (Hayward v. Downer) 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

Hayward v. Downer, 224 P. 265, 65 Cal. App. 450, 1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 598 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

NOURSE, J.

Plaintiffs obtained a verdict of two- thousand dollars for damages suffered by Emilie Hayward, the wife of her coplaintiff, when she fell into a ditch or trench excavated by the defendant in a, public street during the course of his construction of a sewer system under contract. Work under this contract covered a large area in the particular neighborhood in which the plaintiff lived and had been in course of construction for a period of some two *451 and a half months prior to the date of the injury. On the night on which the injury occurred, the plaintiffs had been visiting a neighbor and on their return home over a path which they had frequently used the wife fell into- the trench and suffered the injuries which are the basis of the accident. Plaintiffs had a general verdict in the sum of two thousand dollars, and from the judgment upon the verdict this appeal is taken.

The only grounds urged upon the appeal are: (1) That the respondent Bmilie Hayward had knowledge or the means of knowledge of the existence of the danger, that she voluntarily assumed the risk, and was therefore guilty of contributory negligence as a matter -of law; (2) that the respondent Bmilie Hayward’s husband bad actual knowledge of the danger and that his negligence in failing to warn his wife of such danger bars recovery ¡by both himself and his wife.

There is much respectable authority in support of appellant’s first point, and such, in fact, was the rule in this state until the supreme court, in Meindersee v. Meyers, 188 Cal. 498, 503 [205 Pac. 1078], held that, notwithstanding this knowledge and means of -knowledge, it was for the jury to determine whether it was a want of ordinary care for the injured not to- have the source of danger in mind.

Nothing was -said by the supreme court regarding the standing of the husband in relation to the award of damages for his wife’s injury and no- effort was made to distinguish the rule affirmed in Basler v. Sacramento G. & E. Co., 158 Cal. 514, 518 [Ann. Cas. 1912A, 642, 111 Pac. 530], to the effect that the husband’s failure to notify bis wife of approaching danger while under his -care bars recovery by Mm for injuries suffered by the wife.

However, the Meindersee case was decided upon a state of facts similar to those before us, and we must assume from the decision that ‘all these questions were taken into consideration and that, where either husband or wife having knowledge o-r previous notice of the unsafe condition of a street voluntarily puts himself in a place of danger from which injury results to the wife, it is a question for the jury to determine whether either is guilty of contributory negligence.

Judgment affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Langdon, P. J., concurred.

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

NOURSE, J.

Plaintiffs obtained a verdict of two- thousand dollars for damages suffered by Emilie Hayward, the wife of her coplaintiff, when she fell into a ditch or trench excavated by the defendant in a, public street during the course of his construction of a sewer system under contract. Work under this contract covered a large area in the particular neighborhood in which the plaintiff lived and had been in course of construction for a period of some two *451 and a half months prior to the date of the injury. On the night on which the injury occurred, the plaintiffs had been visiting a neighbor and on their return home over a path which they had frequently used the wife fell into- the trench and suffered the injuries which are the basis of the accident. Plaintiffs had a general verdict in the sum of two thousand dollars, and from the judgment upon the verdict this appeal is taken.

The only grounds urged upon the appeal are: (1) That the respondent Bmilie Hayward had knowledge or the means of knowledge of the existence of the danger, that she voluntarily assumed the risk, and was therefore guilty of contributory negligence as a matter -of law; (2) that the respondent Bmilie Hayward’s husband bad actual knowledge of the danger and that his negligence in failing to warn his wife of such danger bars recovery ¡by both himself and his wife.

There is much respectable authority in support of appellant’s first point, and such, in fact, was the rule in this state until the supreme court, in Meindersee v. Meyers, 188 Cal. 498, 503 [205 Pac. 1078], held that, notwithstanding this knowledge and means of -knowledge, it was for the jury to determine whether it was a want of ordinary care for the injured not to- have the source of danger in mind.

Nothing was -said by the supreme court regarding the standing of the husband in relation to the award of damages for his wife’s injury and no- effort was made to distinguish the rule affirmed in Basler v. Sacramento G. & E. Co., 158 Cal. 514, 518 [Ann. Cas. 1912A, 642, 111 Pac. 530], to the effect that the husband’s failure to notify bis wife of approaching danger while under his -care bars recovery by Mm for injuries suffered by the wife.

However, the Meindersee case was decided upon a state of facts similar to those before us, and we must assume from the decision that ‘all these questions were taken into consideration and that, where either husband or wife having knowledge o-r previous notice of the unsafe condition of a street voluntarily puts himself in a place of danger from which injury results to the wife, it is a question for the jury to determine whether either is guilty of contributory negligence.

Judgment affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Langdon, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 P. 265, 65 Cal. App. 450, 1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayward-v-downer-calctapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack