Shoemake v. Wilsey

277 P.2d 17, 43 Cal. 2d 686, 1954 Cal. LEXIS 289

• Court: California Supreme Court
• Decided: December 3, 1954
• Docket: Sac. 6483
• Status: Published

Opinions

SCHAUER, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment in his action to recover for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident. We have concluded that the jury were properly instructed, that the evidence sustains the verdict, and that the judgment should be affirmed.

While plaintiff as a pedestrian was attempting to cross State Street (a north-south thoroughfare), within a marked crosswalk,¹ from west to east at the intersection with Perkins Street in the city of Ukiah, he was struck by defendant husband’s automobile then being driven by defendant wife. She had been traveling from east to west on Perkins Street and at the time of impact had turned left (south) into State Street. She had entered the intersection at a speed of approximately 5 miles an hour, and testified that she did not see plaintiff until she was so close she could not stop before hitting him. The intersection was not controlled by traffic lights or other mechanical device and was free of other traffic at the time.

Plaintiff urges error in instructing the jury on defendants’ plea of contributory negligence, contending that there was no evidence of such negligence on plaintiff’s part. However, defendant driver testified that when she was some 5 or 6 feet from the crosswalk she saw plaintiff, “and he was running across in front of me.” The witness Shepard gave the following testimony-. “Q. Did you see the pedestrian? A. I did.

“Q. You saw him as he was hit? A. Yes.

“Q. Did you see him as he left the sidewalk? A. Yes.

‘1Q. What direction was he moving ? A. Bast.

“Q. Bast. Prom the west side of State Street toward the east side of State Street, is that right? A. Yes.

“Q. Was he walking or running? A. As soon as he left the curb.”

The same witness testified that he saw plaintiff “run from the sidewalk,” that plaintiff “was at a run” when he stepped from the sidewalk, that he did not “see the pedestrian at any time walking in that cross walk,” that plaintiff “ran in front of” defendant’s ear, and that he ran “To the point where he was hit.” Plaintiff himself testified that he saw defendant’s car as he left the curb and “I had my eye on it then the rest of the time,” that when he realized he was going to be hit he “started to run” and had taken two or three running steps before being struck.

It is apparent that the above substantially conflicting evidence is sufficient to support a finding by the jury that plaintiff, without exercising reasonable care for his own safety, ran in front of defendant’s automobile and so was guilty of negligence proximately contributing to his injuries. Other evidence indicating that the witness Shepard may not have seen plaintiff as he left the sidewalk merely creates a conflict which was resolved by the jury in defendant’s favor and cannot, upon any theory pertinent here, be considered on appeal. (See Richter v. Walker (1951), 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [226 P.2d 593] ; Pfingsten v. Westenhaver, (1952), 39 Cal.2d 12, 19 [244 P.2d 395]; Holmberg v. Marsden (1952), 39 Cal.2d 592, 596 [248 P.2d 417]; and Thomas v. Hunt Mfg. Corp. (1954), 42 Cal.2d 734, 736 [269 P.2d 12].) Gray v. Brinkerhoff (1953), 41 Cal.2d 180 [258 P.2d 834], is clearly not a comparable case. There all of the evidence, devoid of conflict either direct or inferential, was to the effect that the pedestrian entered the marked crosswalk at a time and under circumstances when the defendant’s automobile presented no apparent hazard, and that she was crossing with the traffic lights and in a careful manner, whereas here, as stated, there was evidence that plaintiff ran in front of the automobile which was an immediate and perceivable hazard.

Plaintiff also urges that “It is error for the Court to instruct the jury in a pedestrian case that a duty rests upon a pedestrian ‘to exercise reasonable care at all times within a marked crosswalk and to continue to be alert to safeguard against injury’ without the qualification to this instruction that the injury which must be anticipated must be something that is known to the pedestrian, or must be at least the lawful act of the other party and can not be an instruction to the effect that the pedestrian must anticipate negligence or unlawful acts on the part of another.” Plaintiff does not, however, assert that any such instruction as that which he criticizes was actually given nor point .out to us at what place in the record such an instruction, if given, might be found. (See rule 15, Rules on Appeal.) We have, nevertheless, read the instructions as a whole and find that the law was fairly stated therein, with respect to the duties and obligations of both pedestrians and drivers.

The judgment is affirmed.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

1 We assume for purposes of decision that plaintiff, as testified by him, was attempting to cross within the crosswalk although there was evidence that shortly after the accident he was observed lying in the street “approximately four, five feet, something like that” south of the .crosswalk.