Minnegren v. Nozar, 4 Cal. App. 5th 500

On Sept. 1, 2010, Nozar drove from a stopped position at a stop sign on 10th Street into the intersection at Broadway and collided with Minnegren, who was eastbound on Broadway (through street).
Witnesses (Edwards, Tragos) described the Range Rover as rolling/accelerating through the stop sign; officer Padilla concluded Nozar failed to yield and cited speed as a factor.
At trial Nozar testified he stopped behind the limit line for ~5 seconds, looked, saw Minnegren approaching, judged she was far enough, and proceeded; he admitted his judgment was mistaken but denied negligent driving.
The jury returned a special verdict finding Nozar not negligent; the trial court entered judgment and denied Minnegren’s motions for new trial and JNOV based on insufficiency of the evidence.
Minnegren appealed, arguing (1) Nozar’s admissions established negligence as a matter of law and (2) the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence was legally insufficient to support the defense verdict (i.e., whether Nozar was negligent as a matter of law)	Minnegren: Nozar admitted he pulled out in front of her, caused the collision, and conceded she had right-of-way — so liability is established as a matter of law	Nozar: He exercised some care (stopped, looked, judged he could proceed); his testimony created a factual dispute for the jury	Court: Affirmed — conflicting testimony and reasonable inferences for the jury constitute substantial evidence; admissions of mistake do not automatically establish negligence as a matter of law
Whether the trial court erred denying new trial and JNOV for insufficiency of evidence	Minnegren: Denial improper because no substantial evidence supports verdict	Nozar: Substantial evidence exists (his testimony) and conflicts are for jury; trial court’s denial not an abuse	Court: Affirmed denial; substantial evidence supports verdict and JNOV/new-trial rulings

Malinson v. Black, 83 Cal.App.2d 375 (explains driver entering highway may be mistaken without negligence; whether approaching car constituted an immediate hazard is a question of fact)
Dickison v. LaThorpe, 124 Cal.App.2d 190 (not every mistake of judgment is negligence; question of fact whether mistake equals negligence)
Kalfus v. Fraze, 136 Cal.App.2d 415 (if driver testifies he looked, whether lookout was adequate is a factual question for the trier of fact)
Safirstein v. Nunes, 241 Cal.App.2d 416 (failure to renew observation after entering intersection may be negligence for jury but is not negligence as a matter of law)
Spriesterbach v. Holland, 215 Cal.App.4th 255 (violation of right-of-way statute does not automatically impose negligence per se; conduct judged against reasonably prudent driver standard)