User:SafetySox/sandbox
Liability of Motor vehicle collision (California)
[edit]In California, the all-or-nothing rule of contributory negligence has been superseded by pure comparative negligence.[1]
Negligence must be the proximate cause of collisionCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
Presumption of negligence is rebutable. Non-negligent ignorance of the facts which bring a regulation into operation will support a finding that violation thereof is civilly excusable.[2] Negligence is a question of law only when no other inference can be reasonably drawn from the facts in evidence[3]<><>
The fact of knowledge on relating to a "custom" or practice of violating a statute cannot be binding so as to excuse violating the statute.[4]
Intersections
[edit]The mere occurrence of an accident in an intersection protected under the right-of-way statutes (Veh. Code, §§ 21800-21806) does not, in and of itself, raise a presumption of negligence per se against the unprotected driver.[5]. The odds are against it: When a vehicle operated by A collides with a vehicle operated by B, there are four possibilities. A alone was negligent; B alone was negligent; both were negligent; or neither. Of these four only the first will result in liability of A to B.[6] The question of which driver had the right of way at an intersection under the provisions of Veh. Code, §§ 21800-21806, is not always controlling as to negligence. A driver, in enforcing his lawful right of way, may violate the provisions of Veh. Code, § 22350, and thus be guilty of actionable negligence.[7] Furthermore, proof that the driver of one vehicle colliding with another vehicle at an intersection was not exceeding the legal speed limit does not establish freedom from negligence.[8]
Stop sign-one or two way
[edit]The general duty laid down to highway users with a one or two way stop is CVC 21802[9] This law provides that either the stopped or through driver who fails their duty to yield may be the the liable party.
Many motorists "have the impression that every motorist who attempts to enter a main highway from a side road, does so at his peril. This misconception of the law is a prolific source of accidents. Such motorist has very definite rights granted to him by the provisions of the Vehicle Code, and those users of the main highway who ignore such rights must be prepared to pay the penalty.[10][11][12][13]
Where a car has actually entered an intersection before the other approaches it, the driver of the first car has the right to assume that he will be given the right of way and be permitted to pass through the intersection without danger of collision. He has a right to assume that the driver of the other car will obey the law, slow down, and yield the right of way, if slowing down be necessary to prevent a collision. [14] An entering driver is not required to yield the right of way to through driver a considerable distance away whose duty it is to slow down in crossing an intersection[15]
Duty on the through driver
[edit]Duty to obey basic speed law
[edit]The general duty to drive a safe speed is laid down by the basic speed law---CVC 22350[16] which is a statutized reinforcements of the centuries-old common law negligence doctrine as specifically applied to vehicular speed.[17]
It is the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle using the public highways to be vigilant at all times and to keep the vehicle under such control that to avoid a collision he can stop as quickly as might be required of him by eventualities that would be anticipated by an ordinarily prudent driver in like position.[18] Such driver has a duty to slow down in crossing an intersection and to look for vehicles on the street before attempting to cross it.[19] Such duty is not fulfilled by looking and failing to see that which is readily and clearly visible, particularly when the vehicle being driven across the highway had stopped before entering it and has almost traversed it.
Moreover, the care and focus ordinarily required of a through driver against certain types of hazards may be somewhat amplified on roads with lower functional classification and intersecting streets in cities.[20][21] The probability of spontaneous traffic increases proportionally to the density of access points, and this density should be readily apparent to a driver even when a specific access point is not.[22]
The through driver is bound to anticipate that he may meet persons or vehicles at any point of the street. Furthermore, the stopped driver's non-negligent ignorance of the facts--such as the imprudent speed of the through motorist, or his or her existence in immediate and hazardous proximity behind a visual obstruction--which would otherwise bring regulation into operation will support a finding that violation thereof is civilly excusable.[23]
Duty to yield to those in lawful control of intersection
[edit]California statute CVC 21802(b) provides that a through driver has a unilateral duty to yield to those who have already lawfully entered an intersection from a full stop at stop sign. That duty comes into play both when the through driver is merely a "distant hazard" or as a variation of the basic speed law.[24] but not when he or she is already an "immediate hazard." A driver a considerable distance away has a duty to slow down in crossing an intersection.[25]
Duty on the entering motorist
[edit]The entering motorist must have come to a full stop, for a period long enough as to allow all immediate traffic to safely cross the intersection. -A motorist crossing at an intersection is not required to yield the right of way to one a considerable distance away.[26][27] Where an entering motorist has entered an intersection before another approaches it, such driver has the right to assume that he will be given the right of way and be permitted to pass through the intersection without danger of collision, and that the other driver will obey the law, slow down, and yield the right of way, if slowing down be necessary to prevent a collision.[28][29]
Immediate hazard
[edit]Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).California Reports, 2nd Series: 626. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)</ref>
References
[edit]- ^ Li v Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804
- ^ Nevis v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 43 Cal. 2d 626
- ^ Davis v. California S. C. R. Co., 105 Cal. 131
- ^ Reinders v. Olsen,60 Cal. App. 764
- ^ Frediani v. Ota, 215 Cal. App. 2d 127
- ^ Cordova v Ford, 246 Cal App 2d 180
- ^ Stevenson v. Fleming, 47 Cal. App. 2d 225
- ^ Malinson v. Black, 83 Cal. App. 2d 375
- ^ 21802
- ^ Casselman v. Hartford A. & I. Co., 36 Cal.App.2d 700
- ^ Glynn v. Vaccari, 64 Cal.App.2d 718
- ^ Malinson v. Black, 83 Cal. App. 2d 375
- ^ Grasso v. Cunial, 106 Cal. App. 2d 294
- ^ Keyes v. Hawley, 100 Cal.App. 53
- ^ Grasso v. Cunial, 106 Cal. App. 2d 294
- ^ 22350
- ^ "Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co., 189 Cal. 335". Official California Reports, Vol. 189, p. 335, (California Supreme Court reporter). July 27, 1922. Retrieved 2013-07-27.
This is but a reiteration of the rule, in statutory form, which has always been in force without regard to a statutory promulgation to the effect that drivers or operators of vehicles, and more particularly motor vehicles, must be specially watchful in anticipation of the presence of others at places where other vehicles are constantly passing, and where men, women, and children are liable to be crossing, such as corners at the intersections of streets or other similar places or situations where people are likely to fail to observe an approaching automobile.
- ^ Lutz v. Schendel, 175 Cal. App. 2d 140
- ^ Grasso v. Cunial, 106 Cal. App. 2d 294
- ^ "Riggs v. Gasser Motors, 22 Cal. App. 2d 636". Official California Appellate Reports (2nd Series Vol. 22, p. 636). September 25, 1937. Retrieved 2013-7-27.
"It is common knowledge that intersecting streets in cities present a continuing hazard, the degree of hazard depending upon the extent of the use of the intersecting streets and the surrounding circumstances or conditions of each intersection. Under such circumstances the basic law...is always governing."
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) See Official Reports Opinions Online - ^ "Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co., 189 Cal. 335". Official California Reports, Vol. 189, p. 335, (California Supreme Court reporter). July 27, 1922. Retrieved 2013-7-27.
"motor vehicles, must be specially watchful in anticipation of the presence of others at places where other vehicles are constantly passing, and where men, women, and children are liable to be crossing, such as corners at the intersections of streets or other similar places or situations where people are likely to fail to observe an approaching automobile."
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) See Official Reports Opinions Online - ^ "Leeper v. Nelson, 139 Cal. App. 2d 65". Official California Appellate Reports (2nd Series Vol. 139, p. 65). Feb. 6, 1956. Retrieved 2013-7-27.
"The operator of an automobile is bound to anticipate that he may meet persons or vehicles at any point of the street, and he must in order to avoid a charge of negligence, keep a proper lookout for them and keep his machine under such control as will enable him to avoid a collision with another automobile driven with care and caution as a reasonably prudent person would do under similar conditions."
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) See Huetter v. Andrews, 91 Cal. App. 2d 142, Berlin v. Violett, 129 Cal.App. 337, Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co., 189 Cal. 335 , and Official Reports Opinions Online - ^ Nevis v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 43 Cal. 2d 626
- ^ Allin v. Snavely 100 Cal. App. 2d 411. Quote: "A driver by insisting upon his lawful right of way may violate the basic law as provided by [section 22350 of] the Vehicle Code. When he does so, he is guilty of negligence and is liable for injuries caused thereby."
- ^ Grasso v. Cunial, 106 Cal. App. 2d 294
- ^ Grasso v. Cunial, 106 Cal. App. 2d 294
- ^ Whitelaw v. McGilliard, 179 Cal. 349
- ^ Grasso v. Cunial, 106 Cal. App. 2d 294
- ^ Keyes v. Hawley, 100 Cal.App. 53, 60
- ^ gg