13 Cal. App. 2d 641 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1936
Negligence—Personal Injuries. The sole question involved in this appeal is whether or not plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. There was evidence to show that on November 14, 1931, at
It is appellants’ contention that as plaintiff testified she had looked and did not see the car, which was fully lighted, her testimony that she looked was not worthy of belief, for to have looked was to have seen, and plaintiff was guilty of - contributory negligence as a matter of law, for which reason the case should not have been submitted to the jury. There is no merit in the contention. It is admitted by appellants that plaintiff had the “Go” signal in her favor and that the street car went through the traffic signal without stopping, but they insist that this act did not excuse plaintiff from exercising care. This is undoubtedly true, but where one crosses a street intersection in obedience to a traffic signal the question of the pedestrian’s contributory negligence in failing to see an approaching vehicle wffien she looked in its direction is a question for the jury. (Welch v. Wirsching, 127 Cal. App. 725 [16 Pac. (2d) 691].) In the case cited the same contention was made as here. In Long v. Barbieri, 120 Cal. App. 207 [7 Pac. (2d) 1082], decided by this court, it was held that where a plaintiff was walking
No question is raised as to the amount of the verdict which was for the sum of $3,600, nor as to the nature of the injuries she suffered.
The judgment is affirmed.
Knight, J., and Cashin, J., concurred.