This аction was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff Huldah T. Edwards as the result of an automobile accident, which occurred about 8:30 P. M., April 1, 1927, just bеyond the point where the Berryessa road intersects the Oakland-San Jose highway at an acute angle.
The night was dark and the highway was wet and slippery from rain. Said plaintiff and her small daughter, as guests, аnd Mrs. Gullick, were riding in the rear seat of the closed car which defendant Gullick, was driving southerly along said Oаkland-San Jose highway. The automobile driven by *87 defendant Murotsune was at the same time proceеding southwesterly along said Berryessa road; he reached the crossing and turned northerly into the highway. The headlights of his car shining on the wet road, or the allegedly wide turn made by him, misled defendant Gulliek to believe that he intended to proceed straight across the highway in the path of the approaching Gulliek car. At any rate, defendant Gulliek, in an attempt to avoid what he thought was an imminent collision, applied his brakes and swung to the left and the two cars thereupon collided at about the cеnter of the road.
As a result of the collision plaintiff sustained the severe and permanent injuries for which she seeks to recover by this action. Her complaint alleged and she throughout the trial mаintained that both said defendants were negligent in the operation of their machines. The evidence in this behalf was not entirely free from conflict. There was evidence that defendant Murotsune mаy have made so wide a turn into the highway as to mislead defendant Gulliek but there was more persuasive evidence .that had defendant Gulliek kept to the right, or his own side of the road, instead of turning to the lеft, and had he driven at a speed enabling him to keep his car more under control in traversing a wеt road at night, the collision might have been avoided. At the conclusion of the trial the jury returned a vеrdict for plaintiff and against defendant Gulliek in the sum of $6,000 and also returned a verdict in favor of defendant Murotsune.
From said judgment defendant Gulliek has alone appealed upon the ground of errors in instruсtion and other alleged prejudicial errors occurring upon the trial. He also contends thаt plaintiff’s cause of action has been abated by section 141% of the California Vehicle Act. Said statute, however, is not retroactive and does not affect causes of action еxisting on August 14, 1929, the date it took effect
(Callet
v.
Alioto,
The various alleged prejudicial errors complained оf by appellant, errors in instructions, remarks which the jury was admonished to disregard, made by a juror and by counsel for plaintiffs, have all received consideration. It is our conclusion that none of thesе matters constitute reversible error nor do they merit detailed discussion.
*88
One of the main points urged by appellant is that the court erred in instructing the jury that the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur
had application to the facts of this case giving rise to the legal presumption that defendant Gullick was guilty of negligence and shifting the burden of proof to him to meet plaintiffs’
prima facie
case. Appellant asserts that the giving of this instruction was error and cites
Keller
v.
Cushman,
The judgment is affirmed.
Richards, J., Shenk, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.
Shenk, J., Curtis, J., and Langdon, J., dissented.