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.
NELSON et al. v. SIGNAL OIL & GAS CO. et al.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiffs after a trial by jury in an action brought to recover damages for the wrongful death of the husband of one of the plaintiffs and father of the others.
Viewing the evidence most favorable to plaintiffs (Ah Gett v. Carr, 3 Cal.App. 47, 48, 84 P. 458), the facts in the instant case are:
Decedent was one of five men riding in an automobile returning from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara about 2:30 a. m. At a point on the highway approximately three miles south of Carpinteria, the automobile in which decedent was riding collided with the rear end of a trailer owned by defendant Signal Oil & Gas Company and operated by defendant Richardson. Decedent died as a result of the accident. The truck and trailer had left Los Angeles about 8 o'clock the preceding evening, at which time the trailer was equipped with two taillights situated on the chassis and a light fastened onto the extreme rear of an overhanging pipe. Repeated inspections were made of these lights by the defendant Richardson and a companion who accompanied him, from the time they left Los Angeles to a point approximately two miles prior to the scene of the accident. On each of these occasions the lights were observed to be burning brightly.
There was evidence that defendants were negligent in not having at the time of the accident two red lights burning at the extreme end of the load, as required by section 110 (a) of the California Vehicle Act (St. 1923, p. 552, § 110 (a), as amended by St. 1931, p. 2119).
The sole question necessary for us to determine upon this appeal is: Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in refusing defendants' requested instruction reading:
“You are instructed that even though you find that at the time and place of the accident complained of the rear or taillights on the truck and trailer of the defendants' had become extinguished, that fact in itself does not necessarily make the operator of said vehicle guilty of negligence. * * *
“If in this case you find that the defendants made a reasonable inspection of the rear or taillights on said truck and trailer and exercised due care to determine that said taillights were in fact burning, then you are instructed that the defendants were not guilty of negligence in this particular even though the rear or taillights were out when the collision occurred.”
The facts in the instant case are analogous with those in Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Company, 191 Cal. 195, 215 P. 675, and the question of law is identical. Our Supreme Court held in Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Company, supra, that the refusal of the trial court to give a similar instruction was reversible error.
The judgment is reversed.
McCOMB, Justice pro tem.
We concur: CRAIL, P. J.; WOOD, J.
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. 10376.
Decided: December 03, 1935
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, 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)