From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodgerson v. LeBaron

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Aug 3, 1922
58 Cal.App. 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)

Opinion

Civ. No. 4247.

August 3, 1922.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. James G. Quinn, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

William N. Graybiel for Appellant.

C. W. White for Respondent.


Plaintiff recovered judgment for $626.90 for injuries resulting from the collision of two automobiles, one driven by the defendant and the other driven by plaintiff's son. The collision occurred at the intersection of the state highway with Redwood Road, near the town of Hayward, in Alameda County. The plaintiff, with his son driving, was going south on Redwood Road intending to cross the highway. The defendant approached on his left, going west on the highway. The right front wheel of defendant's car struck the left rear wheel of plaintiff's car at a point on the highway about six feet south and to the left of the intersection. The testimony relating to the speed of the cars contains the usual conflict.

[1] The appeal is based upon the ground that the evidence shows that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and that he had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. Upon both of these issues the evidence is conflicting and the court, sitting without a jury, resolved the conflict in favor of plaintiff. Under the circumstances the judgment should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Langdon, P. J., concurred.


Summaries of

Rodgerson v. LeBaron

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Aug 3, 1922
58 Cal.App. 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)
Case details for

Rodgerson v. LeBaron

Case Details

Full title:T. A. RODGERSON, Respondent, v. W. J. LeBARON, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two

Date published: Aug 3, 1922

Citations

58 Cal.App. 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)
209 P. 216

Citing Cases

Godeau v. Levy

It is apparent, we think, from the evidence above narrated, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion…