Page v. Mayors

California Supreme Court

Page v. Mayors

216 P. 31, 191 Cal. 263, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 449

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 12, 1923

DocketL. A. No. 7215.

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 216 P. 31 (Page v. Mayors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Page v. Mayors, 216 P. 31, 191 Cal. 263, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 449 (Cal. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for a head-on collision occurring upon a public highway between an automobile operated by defendant’s agent traveling on the left-hand side of the road and plaintiff’s automobile. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff that there was no contributory negligence and that the defendant was guilty of negligence and awarded damages in the sum of $425, although the plaintiff had claimed $10,000 damages. The defendant appeals and claims that the judgment is erroneous for the reason that the evidence shows that the plaintiff did not have an operator’s license at the time of the collision and that the defendant’s agent was blinded by the automobile lights of the plaintiff’s machine. With reference to the question of the operator’s license, it is sufficient to say that it had nothing to do with the collision. We are not disposed to hold that the presence of the plaintiff upon the highway was unlawful and that this was thus a proximate cause of his injuries or to deprive him of the right of recovery.

As to the fact that the defendant’s servant’s eyes were blinded by plaintiff’s lights there is no evidence that these lights did not comply with the statute, and in view of the judgment we must assume that they did.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

This is an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for a head-on collision occurring upon a public highway between an automobile operated by defendant’s agent traveling on the left-hand side of the road and plaintiff’s automobile. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff that there was no contributory negligence and that the defendant was guilty of negligence and awarded damages in the sum of $425, although the plaintiff had claimed $10,000 damages. The defendant appeals and claims that the judgment is erroneous for the reason that the evidence shows that the plaintiff did not have an operator’s license at the time of the collision and that the defendant’s agent was blinded by the automobile lights of the plaintiff’s machine. With reference to the question of the operator’s license, it is sufficient to say that it had nothing to do with the collision. We are not disposed to hold that the presence of the plaintiff upon the highway was unlawful and that this was thus a proximate cause of his injuries or to deprive him of the right of recovery.

As to the fact that the defendant’s servant’s eyes were blinded by plaintiff’s lights there is no evidence that these lights did not comply with the statute, and in view of the judgment we must assume that they did.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 P. 31, 191 Cal. 263, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/page-v-mayors-cal-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack