Page v. Mazzei

3 P.2d 11, 213 Cal. 644, 1931 Cal. LEXIS 573
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 21, 1931
DocketDocket No. L.A. 13068.
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 3 P.2d 11 (Page v. Mazzei) 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. Mazzei, 3 P.2d 11, 213 Cal. 644, 1931 Cal. LEXIS 573 (Cal. 1931).

Opinion

WASTE, C. J.

Under proper instructions, and on ample evidence to support its verdict, the jury awarded the plaintiffs substantial damages for injuries sustained by Mrs. Page when the automobile of defendant crashed into the automobile of plaintiffs, at the intersection of two roads. The case, in all material respects, is so similar to the case of Couchman v. Snelling, 111 Cal. App. 192 [295 Pac. 845, 847], recently decided, that we approve and adopt the language of Mr. Presiding Justice Tyler in the opinion handed down in that cause, viz.: “ Where a car has actually entered an intersection before, the other approaches it, the driver of the first car has the right to assume that he will be given the right of way and be permitted to pass through the intersection without danger of collision. He has a right to assume that the driver of the other car will obey the law, slow down, and yield the right of way, if slowing down be necessary to prevent a collision. (Keyes v. Hawley, 100 Cal. App. 53, 60 [279 Pac. 674].) Nor is a plaintiff required to yield the right of way to one a considerable distance away whose duty it is to slow down in crossing an intersection. (Whitelaw v. McGilliard, 179 Cal. 349 [176 Pac. 679].) Whether or not, therefore, plaintiff after observing the approa'ch of defendant’s car, its position, and the rate of speed it was traveling and keeping the same within his side vision, was justified in proceeding upon his rightful way across the intersection in advance of defendant presents a question upon which reasonable minds *646 might differ and was therefore one for the jury to determine (citing cases).”

The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.

Curtis, J., Preston, J., Langdon, J., Shenk, J., and Sea-well, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

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

Related

Westcott v. Hamilton
202 Cal. App. 2d 261 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Cook v. Ross
285 P.2d 25 (California Court of Appeal, 1955)
Grasso v. Cunial
235 P.2d 32 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
Fresno City Lines, Inc. v. Herman
217 P.2d 987 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Nelson v. Colbeck
211 P.2d 878 (California Court of Appeal, 1949)
Paul v. Key System
180 P.2d 940 (California Court of Appeal, 1947)
Satterlee v. Orange Glenn School District
177 P.2d 279 (California Supreme Court, 1947)
Shifflette v. Walkup Drayage & Warehouse Co.
169 P.2d 996 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
Callaghy v. Mosle
153 P.2d 91 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Ebert v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.
129 P.2d 135 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
Miller v. Cranston
106 P.2d 963 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
Casselman v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
98 P.2d 539 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
Avalos v. Grimale
87 P.2d 392 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
Ries v. Cheyenne Cab & Transfer Co.
79 P.2d 468 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1938)
Mossman v. Sherman
34 Haw. 477 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1938)
Theren v. Hodorowicz
62 P.2d 749 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Osgood v. City of San Diego
62 P.2d 195 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Morrow v. Mendleson
58 P.2d 1302 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Driscoll v. Shipp
57 P.2d 177 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Cowan v. Market Street Railway Co.
47 P.2d 752 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 P.2d 11, 213 Cal. 644, 1931 Cal. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/page-v-mazzei-cal-1931.