MacGREGOR v. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RY CO

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

MacGREGOR et ux. v. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RY. CO.*

Civ. 10536.

Decided: November 13, 1935

Frank Karr, E. E. Morris, C. W. Cornell, and O. O. Collins, all of Los Angeles, for appellant. Paul Blackwood, of Los Angeles, for respondent.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs after a trial before a jury and denial of defendant's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Viewing the evidence most favorably to the plaintiffs (Ah Gett v. Carr, 3 Cal. App. 47, 48, 84 P. 458), the facts in the instant case are:

Mrs. MacGregor, wife of her coplaintiff, was a passenger on a westbound car of defendant, traveling on its private right of way parallel with San Vicente boulevard, which extends east and west. Mrs. MacGregor requested defendant to let her off at Nineteenth street, where there was a loading zone and crosswalk. The car did not stop, but carried her 105 feet west of the pedestrian crosswalk. She alighted on the north side of the track, waited until the car she had just left moved, and thereupon crossed the track to a point midway between the east and westbound tracks. Here she looked to the west and did not see any eastbound car. She thereafter walked in an easterly direction for approximately 80 feet close to but south of the south rail of the westbound track. Here she stopped, looked in a westerly direction, and, not seeing any street car, proceeded to walk diagonally toward the eastbound track and the pedestrian crosswalked for about ten steps, where she was struck and injured by an eastbound car of defendant.

The sole question presented for determination on this appeal is: Was plaintiff Mrs. MacGregor guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law?

The facts in the instant case are analogous, and the questions of law are identical, with those in the case of Trulsson v. Southern Pacific Co., 42 Cal. App. 404, 183 P. 686, where in an able opinion Mr. Justice Richards held the plaintiff guilty of contibutory negligence as a matter of law.

The judgment is reversed, with directions to the trial court to enter a judgment in favor of defendant.

McCOMB, Justice pro tem.

We concur: CRAIL, P. J.; WOOD, J.