Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by the defendant against the trial court's decision to grant a new trial to the plaintiff following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant. The incident occurred when the plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by the defendant's vehicle while crossing a street within an unmarked crosswalk. The trial court's order for a new trial was based on an erroneous jury instruction regarding the concept of an unavoidable accident, which has been clarified by the Supreme Court in Parker v. Womack. The plaintiff alleged negligence due to the defendant's failure to yield in violation of Vehicle Code section 560, arguing that the defendant's actions constituted negligence per se. However, the court considered the circumstances, including the obstructed view and sudden appearance of the plaintiff, and determined that the jury could reasonably find that the defendant's actions were consistent with those of an ordinarily prudent person. Additionally, the court examined claims of excessive speed under Vehicle Code section 513, concluding that such evidence does not automatically imply negligence. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order for a new trial, with one judge concurring in the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Evaluation of Excessive Speed under Vehicle Code Section 513subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that proof of excessive speed does not automatically constitute negligence.
Reasoning: Additionally, under Vehicle Code section 513, proof of excessive speed does not automatically constitute negligence.
Jury Instructions on Unavoidable Accidentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court granted a new trial based on an erroneous instruction regarding unavoidable accident, which was challenged by the defendant.
Reasoning: The new trial was based on the erroneous jury instruction regarding unavoidable accident.
Negligence per se under Vehicle Code Section 560subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff argued that the defendant was negligent for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk as required by Vehicle Code section 560.
Reasoning: Driver counters by asserting that Norman was negligent for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, as mandated by Vehicle Code section 560.
Prima Facie Negligence and Reasonable Conductsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated whether the defendant's failure to yield constituted negligence, considering the obstructed view and sudden appearance of the pedestrian.
Reasoning: Appellant was prima facie negligent for violating Vehicle Code section 560 by failing to yield the right of way. However, evidence indicated that the jury could reasonably find that the appellant's conduct did not deviate from that of an ordinarily prudent person, as his view was obstructed by a preceding Cadillac, and the respondent appeared suddenly.