Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
HINE v. LEPPARD et al.
On petition for rehearing. Petitioner says: “The point which appellants make here, as a basis for rehearing is that, as a condition precedent to appellants' liability, it became the duty of the trial court as well as it becomes the duty of this court, to determine whether or not, at the time and place of the accident, respondent was operating his automobile forward with his headlights in a defective condition, or that he so operated his headlights that they failed to comply with the statutory requirements expressly provided by the California Vehicle Act in force and effect at the time of the accident, to-wit, January 25th, 1931.”
The lights of plaintiff's automobile were not shown to have been other than such as the law requires. They were not as to any element of their construction, in a defective condition. In section 101 of the California Vehicle Act (St. 1923, p. 546, § 101, par. 7, as amended by St. 1927, p. 1433), following paragraph 7, it is “provided, it shall be lawful, when the above requirements and limitations are otherwise complied with, to so construct or equip the headlights of motor vehicles as to permit that the beams of light projected therefrom be depressed downward not more than three degrees of arc below the level otherwise required under this section but without diminishing the amount of light projected from the lamp bulb when so depressed.”
If there was any fault chargeable to plaintiff in this case, it must have been a fault consisting in some misuse of the lights. If under the then existing circumstances he did not use reasonable care in choosing the time, place, and duration of his lowering of the lights, he would be guilty of negligence. This was a question of fact, upon which the decision of the court is reflected in the findings. Since the evidence is sufficient to support these findings, they must stand as made.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Civ. 8937.
Decided: April 01, 1935
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)