Home/California Court of Appeal/Kashevaroff v. Webb

Kashevaroff v. Webb

166 P.2d 306, 73 Cal. App. 2d 177, 1946 Cal. App. LEXIS 822
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 21, 1946
DocketCiv. 12962
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 166 P.2d 306 (Kashevaroff v. Webb) 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
Kashevaroff v. Webb, 166 P.2d 306, 73 Cal. App. 2d 177, 1946 Cal. App. LEXIS 822 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946).

Opinion

DOOLING, J.

Defendants appeal from a judgment for plaintiff entered on a jury verdict. Respondent was struck and injured by an automobile operated by appellant Webb. The *180 scene of the accident is difficult to describe in words and may best be visualized by a diagram thereof which is in evidence as plaintiff’s exhibit No. 1, and is here reproduced, considerably reduced in size: (See page 179.)

While there was a sharp conflict in the testimony we will follow the accepted procedure on appeal and state the substance of the evidence most favorable to the respondent. Shortly before midnight respondent was crossing from the southerly side of Bernal Avenue to the curved segment of sidewalk that lies between Bernal Avenue and Diamond Street. The course that he was taking lay between the two parallel lines which are shown on the diagram extending between the two sidewalks. (These parallel lines are not a part of the original diagram and do not represent marks on the street, but were placed on the diagram during the course of the trial.) Before leaving the curb respondent looked to his left toward San Jose Avenue and observed nothing approaching from that direction. He proceeded across Bernal Avenue to a point near its center line without again looking to his left. A motor ear approached him traveling westerly on Bernal Avenue and he was dazzled by its, or some other, lights and just about that time appellants’ automobile, which had come easterly along San Jose Avenue and was proceeding into Bernal Avenue, struck him.

The questions argued on appeal depend upon whether or not the respondent was walking in an unmarked crosswalk at the time he was struck. The only marked crosswalks in the area are those shown on the diagram as solid parallel lines running northerly from the southerly sidewalk shown on the diagram to the curved sidewalk between Monterey Boulevard and Joost Avenue and thence at a right angle across the mouth of Joost Avenue.

It was stipulated that Diamond Street intersects Bernal Avenue at an angle of 49 degrees, and appellants argue that since this is so there can be no unmarked crosswalk between the southerly side of Bernal Avenue and the curved sidewalk lying between it and Diamond Street, under the definition of section 85(a) of the Vehicle Code which reads:

“ ‘Crosswalk’ is either:
“ (a) That portion of a roadway ordinarily included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles. ...”

*179

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

Related

City of El Monte v. City of Industry
188 Cal. App. 2d 774 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
People v. Prizant
186 Cal. App. 2d 542 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Shafer
179 Cal. App. 2d 188 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
Krogh v. Pemble
310 P.2d 1069 (Washington Supreme Court, 1957)
In Re George & John Hurt
129 F. Supp. 94 (S.D. California, 1955)
Fresno City Lines, Inc. v. Herman
217 P.2d 987 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Haerdter v. Johnson
207 P.2d 855 (California Court of Appeal, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 P.2d 306, 73 Cal. App. 2d 177, 1946 Cal. App. LEXIS 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kashevaroff-v-webb-calctapp-1946.