*1 605 whether entitled one or as to he was to redress physician other or from both of them. striking therefore erred in
We
conclude
the court
entirety.
complaint in
the seventh amended
its
It should
against
It
sufficient,
gen-
therefore be
reinstated.
demurrer,
eral
and it
well lie within the discretion of
require
the trial court to
clarification of uncertainties or
ambiguities. (Guilliams Hollywood Hospital,
v.
supra, p. 104;
822,
Washer v.
Bank
Cal.2d
P.2d
America,
[136
297, 155 A.L.R
;
v.
Wennerholm
University
1338]
Stanford
Medicine,
Barnard, Coughlin, J., pro tem.,* P. J. concurred. No. Dist., 16675. First Div. Two. Dec.
[Civ. 1956.] al., ARA et Appellants, PENNINGTON SOUTHERN (a Corporation) PACIFIC al., COMPANY et Re spondents.
*Assigned by Chairman Judicial Council. *2 Boccardo, Blum, J. Niland and Lull & Niland for
Edward Appellants. di
Rankin, Oneal, Luckhardt, Hall, Center & Michael & Bronson, Respondents. Leonardo and Bronson McKinnon for judgment KAUFMAN, Plaintiffs appeal J. from a wrongful favor of defendants in Plaintiffs death action. Penning- are the widow and five minor children Santford ton, August who was killed 25, 1952, when the truck operating by respondent which he was was struck Southern Company’s Pacific train on Avenue railroad the Fair Oaks crossing Sunnyvale. company The railroad and two of employees charged its complaint negligence in the with management in the train, of the and the charged was maintaining crossing its dangerous crossing and defective condition in pro- tection inadequate, obstructed, physical character rendered it hazаrdous and unsafe. The other respondent, herein, Schuckl *3 operated Company, canning which a Fair near the crossing Oaks Avenue charged was having negligently crossing caused dangerous this to be by piling and unsafe installing boxes and appurtenances certain and structures, by causing great and noise in vicinity the crossing. the negligence All defendants denied alleged and contributory negligence part on the of plaintiff’s decedent. Lester J. Weese, a defendant, respondent’s the fireman on train, filed a cross- complaint injuries for his received in the crash, against respondent Company against Schuckl and and Disposal Serv- ice, Inc., employer the Pennington. decedent alleged He cannery negligently the had so operated property its as to rendering obstruct physical its character dangerous, unsafe, defective charged and and also negligence truck of employer. decedent’s against The returned verdict plaintiffs a and in favor Company defendants Southern Pacific and Schuckl and Company, and a verdict favor of cross-complainant Weese against Disposal Service, Inc. and Schuckl and Company against The action the individual defendants, J. R. Johnston Weese, engineer and Lester fireman, and were dismissed by plaintiffs. p.
The occurred at daylight accident about :20 m., saving time, Santford Pennington, employee of Disposal
Service, Inc., hauling material from a load waste Company’s Schuckl plant. paved and Fair Avenue is a Oaks running street north tracks run and south. The railroad east west, parallel and and there are six sets of tracks at crossing. The tracks were numbered from to north south map on the track, used at trial. line Track is the main bound, east while track 5 the main line westbound track. Tracks 1 spur and are tracks; 3 and are drill tracks. The straight main run line tracks for a of 548 feet distance east of crossing, curve the north. and Schuckl Company operates' cannery adjacent its to the railroad tracks just south of crossing. building main The is on the west side of Fair Avenue, Oaks and on the east side is shed yard. conveyor and box An overhead extends above and across the street about 15 feet south of track number 1. protected signals type crossing Griswold signals erected at the northwest and southeast corners. These consist of crossarms, stop two illuminated an illuminated sign ordinary the size of an stop sign, bell, boulevard lights two red 8 inches in diameter. When activated the stop sign swings down traffic, rings, to face the bell lights alternately. red signals flash These set to operate automatically whenever a westbound train reached point 3,000 crossing, feet east of the San Jose side operate continuously passed until the train had crossing. crossing signals San Francisco side The two separately are operate independently. wired and Power is supplied power lines, the P. G. and E. and in case of power storage failed, failure from If batteries. all current weight causing stop sign swing would be released into place, respondent’s engineer was not certain whether lights not the and bell would function last situation. testimony There that respondent railroad had checked signals morning August day on the they functioning properly. were then accident, Three hours after the accident were checked and found *4 proper working They to be in order. were checked at a point crossing, point 3,000 near the at and not the feet distant, would be first train. How- where activated testimony coming ever, there was that another train from passed evening accident, the north later on which the signals. activated engineer
Respondent’s Johnston, fireman Weese and as well passenger Lambert, James, truckdriver, and train working signals crossing were positively testified that the all testified truckdriver, Williams, just accident. A before the opposite side north or stopped his truck on the that he had cannery res- walking toward the crossing of the and was ring heard the he start and when heard the bells taurant saw signals operating. were He crossing Both train whistle. conveyor. pro- approaching under the It Pennington’s truck eight Hе per miles hour. onto the tracks at about ceeded at no time stopped it collide train. It with the had saw train about watching while he it. He first saw the only train, He two from the feet distant. heard whistles approaching. then for the first time observed the truck loading James, The truck driver who was boxes at Schuckl Pennington’s diagonally Company, saw truck drive across crossing slowly. going very the road and start toward the crossing signal began operate. At about that time south signal began working ap- After the he truck saw the whistle, he proaching, heard the train at saw the train pile the corner of boxes. He heard crash of the collision. He had not continued truck from to watch the crossing. the time he had it observed near He heard had bell before the sound the train All whistle. possibly these observations occurred seconds, within a few 30, he said. The fireman Weese stated that he was riding on left
hand side of the cab as the train rounded the curve between yards 200 and 300 east of the crossing, speed at a of between 60 and per 65 miles hour. It was dark. The train in ac- cordance with rules sounded its whistle one mile crossing, from the again at about one thousand feet crossing. He saw the truck at track number 2 when the engine rounded the curve onto the straight track. There piled were boxes up just south right way to the east of the crossing. Every time he had been on run, piled had seen the bоxes up in that area to height shown photographic in a exhibit. The boxes obstructed his view of crossing, hence he was able to only see the cab the truck first. tell, He could however, signal blinking engine was 300 feet away, although the boxes obstructed his view of signal itself. yelled engineer Weese when he saw the truck. The emergency brakes applied at about 175 feet crossing, but since it takes two or three seconds them *5 slight than re- not more a hold, there could have been
take before truck was hit. Weese suffered duction in momentum memory day accident, for a or two after the but a loss of pre- and he could recall details memory later returned ceding accident. train, consisting of older engineer that his
The testified stationary headlight, baggage cars type engine and per traveling hour, 65 miles that he coaches was at three prior any time to the collision. He did the truck not see yelled fireman from the when the was 175 feet He warning applied he the brakes. stated that and away, not mile for but about blast whistle crossing, that rules re- 1,400 feet east blowing point, of the whistle at this he quire the whistles, one series of not so; two, he blew did blowing place. the collision still when took was the whistle been automatic ever since The train bell had give Clara. There was no time to had left Santa the train required by company blasts short whistle rules the series of are on the or motor vehicles tracks. persоns when employees Company Sehuckl and Three former under section Code of Pro- appellants Civil called building, Penning- who was outside the saw Lopez, cedure. 50 feet crossing, it was about from the truck when ton’s per hour. miles It came a full moving at about ten conveyor, the overhead where it remained said, underneath he crossing signal The on the south few seconds. side for a bell, flashing He operating. heard saw no not then was up again, truck start He not see the lights. did heard although whistle, no train previously He heard the collision. working train whistles even inside the heard he had building. he engaged taking was
Roy Lingerfelt testified conveyor paused light cigarette. when he off boxes uр Pennington’s stop truck drive the south He saw the driver turn his head signal. He saw toward the side couple stopped seconds, started The truck right. crossing signal opera- was not gear. The then in up lowin not continue to watch the truck but a few He did tion. crossing. Although train 75 feet later saw the seconds prior occasions, he whistles heard none heard train he had accident, nor did he hear the train bell. prior operator, working truck Wilson, lift about Gerald crossing. Pennington’s He saw truck 50 feet south stop conveyor. crossing signal come to a full under the operating. He did not up see truck start again, but heard the crash. Between time saw he crash, heard whistle, truck and heard no train al- though on other occasions when this area he had heard approaching trains. whistles
Lingerfelt had and Wilson statements to a railroad investigator shortly They after the accident. were investigator’s handwriting signed by the but were the Although they having above witnesses. denied read the state- signing them, expert before handwriting ments testimony there was “yes” to effect question the that the answer to the you three-page “Have read the above statement and is it your knowledge true to the best and belief?” inwas the handwriting. Many witness’ of the statements in the in- vestigator’s report testimony contradicted given by the these trial. witnesses at the Police also Officer Jones testified that evening on the Wilson accident told him signals that the working, had that he heard the train been approaching, and Pennington get saw drive onto the track and hit. testifying on Rissner, Jack behalf Schuekl and Com- he not pany, that did hear the train said approaching, but impact. He did not hear heard the train whistle. Al- though signed him statement declared that he had said signals crossing that were in accident, after the referring he was then explained he that fact that operated passed later train when a the west that night. passenger stated
The train Lambert that he observed the working approached as the crossing signals train the crossing, the signal that could see when 700 feet from he the crossing. quarter During the last mile he heard the whistle blowing ringing. the bell and testimony for prior
There was that some time to the accident height to a on the piled considerable prop- boxes were Schuekl right way. erty adjoining They the railroad piled height feet of 14 time accident. An official employees were ordered not pile testified Schuekl he signals, the boxes near the but had made no high (or objection piling pallets feet) them two near spur track. eye Pennington right that decedent’s testified Mrs. had injured sight damaged at one time, eye. been his in that “Right application eye His a chauffeur’s license stated ’’ years. light could blind She said see motion 1% eye left right objects. not eye, with the vision April, 1952, perfectly license issued normal. The was unrestricted. committed error was
Appellants contend reversible railroad refusing trial instruct court in regulations statutory constituted company’s compliance with necessarily only required, and did the minimum of care precautions. it of additional obligation relieve to take Code re- the Public Utilities The court instructed that quires type be sounded a bell certain or a steam whistle of a crossing, and to 1,320 at a from a railroad distance of feet crossing, passed kept sounding has be until the train beyond go desires, if it may, and that “the railroad so rung statute, both the bell terms cause instructed that the whistle to be blown.” The was also powеr to the exclusive the Public Commission has Utilities installed at each prescribe protection determine and to be crossing by there evidence that railroad, and that warning device for prescribed any said had Commission signals Pair Avenue other than the Griswold Oaks crossing at time of which were at said installed said Com- accident; that the evidence was uncontradicted that *7 signals. of Other mission had ordered the installation these flagman a jury told that the absence of or instructions warning of a guard, or the failure mechanical upon person going device does not absolve track area duty ordinary looking exercising of care train; for listening approach оf a that the maintenance however, flagman signaling is, or device an invita- such gives rely operation, if upon tion its efficient one to required device, to is not to the same attention such use warning pro- if caution as device amount snch They further that it vided. were told railroad’s duty keeping care in such device to exercise reasonable charge negligence, good repair, that to railroad with but company must have had actual notice of the defective con- dition, notice, or if such such lack of it did not have notice must due its failure exercise reasonable care. regard instructions in
Appellants herein offered several railwаy’s compliance statutory requirements, all of refused. which were plaintiff’s request stating that given
An instruction was given speed or the absence of a whether not a rate depends negligence, upon is or not otherwise, or is statute
613 being place the circumstances and the where the train is jury operated, and that it was an issue for the whether negligence speed not the of the train in this case constituted Respondent railway company as a matter of fact. contends sufficiently apprised this and other instructions jury the duties and the standards applicable thereto, appellant care complain cannot give subject specific failure to instructions if the matter adequately Lloyd instructions, citing covered other v. Southern Co., Cal.App.2d 583], Pac. 111 626 P.2d [245 agree speed
We cannot
the instruction on
referred
above,
any
nor
the other instructions
re
reviewed
gave any
spondent,
jury
indication to the
that the standards
imposed by
only.
statute are minimum
It is
standards
well
statutory regulations
only
settled that such
constitute
the minimum
required by
measure of care
railroad,
usually
it
jury
matter
to determine whether
something
required
more than the minimum
under
(Peri
Angeles
Ry.
evidence in the case.
Co.,
v. Los
Junction
615 person going upon area, a as that involved solves a track such duty ordinary in for his case, to exercise care protection, end, looking listening for the own and to approach of a train.” foregoing
Respondents maintain that when the instructions immediately together are considered with the instruction 203-C, thereafter, paragraph second B.A.J.I. Number no clear that absolute standard conduct was made it is applicable to That instruction is as follows: decedent. by
“However, the maintenance a railroad of a warning bell, signaling or other at railroad device, flagman, approaching crossing, crossing is an invitation to a traveler system. rely upon operation warning efficient of the to ordinary giving exercises care attention to such a One who warning system, upon and who relies of the required use the same, is not same amount caution required train looking listening approaching for an as is warning provided, no or when one does not method ordinary making protective system of the care use exercise provided.” that is question “guarded crossing” can but that the
There be themselves, “stop, and that the look cases in a class are applied unguarded the older cases listen” rule which early necessarily the held not to be standard of crossing was (See crossing. v. required guarded Koch care Southern 176, Am.St.Rep. 332, 677 P. 113 Ry. 148 Cal. Co., [84 Calif. ; v. 795, Gregg 4 L.R.A.N.S. Western Pac. 7 Ann.Cas. 521] ; Ogburn 212 P. v. Atchison, Co., 193 Cal. R. R. [223 553] Cal.App. 491].) It 587 P. has been Ry. Co., 110 etc. [294 guarded is somewhat less at the quantum of care held that the unguarded, amount care is at the crossing than ordinary prudence under circumstances. man of of the 120 Ry. Co., Cal.2d Angeles Junction (Peri Los v. Christian, 24 Cal.2d v. P,2d ; Toschi [149 441] [137 Furthermore, appears it rule now 848].) P.2d duty is no absolute crossing there an obstructed that at reasonably only in cases where a duty exists such ordinary would have con care exercise man in the prudent Key System, necessary. Transit Green stop to be sidered unguarded ob Cal.App.2d 780] Lines, hearing was denied crossing case which structed railway company, assumed that appellant Court Supreme so modified. The had been earlier cases rule the stricter question jury must therefore be left as to whether a stop necessary would be under circumstances.
In view guarded of the fact that instruction on the quoted followed the first instructions, two and since question guarded crossing, this was without not think we do applied. misled as to to be If de the standard upon crossing signals, ceased in reliance the automatic acted guarded crossing applied. the standard to be relying protection upon If the driver instead of the auto *10 wholly upon precautions, matic signals, relied instead his own then the outlined in first two standards instructions would applicable. (See Ogburn Ry. be Co., Atchison etc. Cal.App. 491].) P. The was not instructed 587, 595 [294 duty stop, look, alight, in terms of an absolute to listen and applicable only in but were told this standard was cases that assuring possible where it not to otherwise obtain an was of view the tracks. instruction made
Appellants offered an which themselves alight” in- “stop, rule, listen and look, reference to the necessary every in is troduced it a statement that “It with railroad . . . one about to track should case that cross point that one It went on to out whether look and listen.” bearing ques- on the might or listened have a stopped, looked exercised. This un- or not due care was was tion of whether in the later doubtedly phrased instruction view of better in given, light of think the instruction cases, but we whole, jury. mislead the did not instructions as Pennington that Santford undisputed evidence There was although he right eye, impaired vision in from suffered chauffeur’s license since an unrestricted been issued had gave following instruction court impairment. The trial complain: appellants of which place time and the evidence that you “If find truck, operator of the Santford question the in of the accident eye, sight of of one handicapped the loss Pennington, was extraordi- obligated to make such he was consequence, reasonably com- would unimpaired senses nary use of his vision. handicap to normal for his pensate unimpaired extraordinary use of his make such “Failurе upon part of Santford negligence constitute would senses Pennington.” fact 996, it is said Secundum Corpus
In 65 Juris it incumbent may make defective vision has person that a prevent in- him other senses use of his greater to make faculty jury, sight. if possession than he were in full of Ordinary however, required him. A case care, is all support Cal.App.2d cited in rule v. Bayley, Jones 293], handicapped 647, 654 where it was said required person make a more alert use of other ordinary the standard faculties reach care. The correct in that person impaired rule stated case is that a with person ordinary is bound to “use care faculties which a prudence impaired with faculties so would usе the same ’’ flatly circumstances. The instruction herein stated that Pennington obligated, making without any reference existing circumstances, extraordinary to make an use of compensate his other senses to his handicap. Under case, ordinary circumstances of this use of the sense together hearing with normal eye vision in one might well have been sufficient of his use faculties to meet the standard ordinary detecting care signals. the railroad’s fireman, who no doubt had the eyes, use two recovered against Company Sehuckl and because his view the truck on the obstructed boxes on that defend property. person ant’s A eyes Pennington’s two position with his view the obstructed, tracks not be would required to an extraordinary make use of his sense of hear *11 yet ing Pennington penalized by is thus this instruction. Pennington might Whatever extra effort required be to make under the existing circumstances here would be whatever bring effort would him to ordinary the standard of care and necessarily to not the compensating standard of for normal vision. His conduct “must light be reasonable in of the his infirmity.” of knowledge (Prosser on Torts, ed., p. 126.) 2d The trial court instructed on section subdivision 670, (a), of the Vehicle adequacy concerned with Code the of bring stop brakes vehicle ato within certain distances. He then instructed that stopping speed for distance per 10 miles hour was 9.3 pеr hour, feet and 15 miles 22.8 feet, concluding as follows: “There provisions are other Code, they that section of the but not are relevant the testi mony in Pennington the case.” There nowas evidence that attempted apply the brakes from the time had started vicinity conveyor, proceeding speed of the at a variously per estimated 58 and than between less 20 miles hour. There is no evidence as to condition record erroneously given. brakes. instruction was (Ketchum Pattee, Cal.App.2d 122, 1051].) v. 129 37 P.2d [98
618 they sup jury Instructions mislead the when find port in 111 (Rodenberger Frederickson, v. Cal. the evidence. App.2d 139, 107].) 142 It has been held that P.2d [244 error, above instruction is but not error if it has reversible prejudice (Nelson jury appellant. not misled the to the Dist., Cal.App.2d 96 v. Forterville H. 117 Union Sch. [254 Cal.App.2d 945]; P.2d 110 506 P.2d Kazarian, Trelut v. [243 hardly said, 104].) present case, however, In the it can be jury that the to dismiss the instruction as would be inclined inapplicable court had been told the trial portion of had read relevant the code section which he testimony singled speeds in the case and he out within range speed. estimated decedent’s
Appellants complain giving of an instruction con cerning testimony worthy being one of belief witness proof any justifying sufficient for the fact and a verdict if testimony, in accordance with such even number wit contrary case, testified to “if from the nesses have whole credibility considering weighing witnesses and after you evidence, factors of should that there the various believe probability pointing accuracy a balance of honesty instruction, of one This witness.” B.A.J.I. Num Procedure, 25, based Civil section 1844. ber Code justify language “and would a verdict ac However, the faulty testimony has been criticized cordance with such as. prejudicial.” (Long Co., v. held not Standard Oil ; 39 People Kirkes, 455 P.2d Cal.App.2d 92 Cal. [207 837] Angeles ; Lines, P.2d Rideau v. Los Transit 2d 719 1] [249 466, ; Cal.App.2d P.2d Barton v. Mess [268 772] Cal.App.2d A.L.R.2d more, prejudicial not think that the instruction was 138].) We do preceding instruction which told the in view of witnesses, not in relative number of “but the final test was convincing force the evidence.” in the relative prejudicial error was committed not We do believe negative the effect of instruction on refusing appellant’s might it been in a case although well have evidence, to a against one defendant based appellant’s case where charge signals that certain upon large extent *12 form of the instruction was Respondents say that the given. engineer only singled out the fireman and because it erroneous testimony. refers While the instruction positive giving as testimony members as to of these two crew positive first to the blowing whistle, of the instruc- or of the bell ringing negative testimony may weighed tion then that the be states “against positive testimony of the train crew members (Emрhasis others.” But under ours.) all the instruc- given testimony tions have understood must position hear, whistle, witness in a that he heard no equivalent to was blown. evidence that whistle prejudicial
In view the above errors committed in- structing jury, judgment in favor of respondent Company Pacific must be reversed. Southern However, respondent Schuckl, as to the the evidence piles contradiction, shows without that while the of boxes tracks, they obstructed view did not interfere Any signals. necessary the railroad’s structure in the carrying canning company’s on business would some respondent points extent obstruct the view the As tracks. building out, their on the other side of Pair Oaks Avenue also obstructs the view the tracks. Section of Torts rule possessor Restatement states the as follows: “A subject liability bodily of land is for harm to others out by activity by the land caused side an carried him thereon which he realizes should realize as involving an unreason bodily risk of harm to under able them the same conditions though activity place.” were carried on at a neutral (b) points Comment out the public pos interest in a sessor’s free use of land factor in determining risk whether the is reasonable or unreasonable. The illustra high being by possessor tion is of a built wall heavily intersection of two land traveled streets. The possessor is said not to be liable accident caused prevents fact the wall motorists from seeing other approaching along the intersection motorists the other road. Since the evidence shows obstruction was caused respondent’s property reasonable use of with which the de familiar, for at the time of ceased was accident hauling engaged respondents’ waste material plant, part was no on the there violation Schuckl and Company any duty judgment owed decedent. must therefore respondent Company. as to be affirmed Schuckl Judgment respondent as to reversed Southern Pacific Com- pany.
Judgment respondent affirmed as to and Company. Schuckl pro tem.,* Draper, J. concurred.
*Assigned by Judicial Chairman of Council.
620 Acting judgment.
DO in OLING, P. J. I concur I portion cannоt of tacit, concur in the even approval, requires plain look and listen instruction which necessary, alight vehicle, go tiff “if his forward a steps advantage few of the thus afforded.” take view by Despite dictum in the fact that Mr. Justice Holmes his Goodman, 66 Baltimore & O. R. R. v. 275 U.S. S.Ct. Co. [48 24, gave impetus 167, 645], 72 L.Ed. 56 an to this A.L.R apparently supreme doctrine carried our court with which it in 207 Co., 753, Koster v. Pac. Cal. 762 Southern [279 788], repudiation this thought P. I had dictum by court in Pokora v. Wabash Holmes 1934 a unanimous Ry. Co., 98 91 A.L.R 292 S.Ct. 78 L.Ed. U.S. [54 against 1049], had turned the tide in this state what is requirement. patently frequently a unrealistic and ridiculous taken The same view of the later California decisions by Co. the United Pac. v. States Circuit Court Southern Key System Souza, 691, 693; Transit 179 F.2d and Green 780], Lines, Cal.App.2d 512, the other the rule of the division of court characterized Goodman look and ‘stop, case as “the doctrine of rather unrealistic ” stating by Holmes, listen’ . . that since . evolved Mr. Justice duty “the of that doctrine law as announcement ’’ change. undergone . . has considerable a vehicle driver . Many of are in the the later cases collected Souza California unnecessary to do more and I consider it Green cases those than refer to citations. requiring the driver absurdity rigid rule every he cannot otherwise
get out of vehicle in case where his clearly by Mr. get a of the tracks was so stated clear view 104-105 pages at case, in the Pokora U.S. Justice Cardozo myself quotation: I content with a at prudent conduct are declared times “Standards life. To courts, they are over facts taken pre- uncommon get reconnoitre an out of a vehicle and being us. Besides everyday experience informs caution, as futile, even very likely and sometimes uncommon, it to be nears vehicle he If his dangerous. driver leaves nothing by getting about learn out a he will curve, cut regains By his beyond. he lurk the time perils may train motion, the hidden car in and sets his seat safeguard will [Citing Often added upon him. cases.] straight, as it happens to be though the track be dubious station, far events was, this one at all as seems that as traveling speеd at about five to the north. A train blocks quarter of miles an hour will of mile cover obscurity space thirty may emerge thus seconds. It out regain waiting driver turns his back to car, may upon suddenly him when his car is on descend helping out, might track. getting Instead himself press do better forward all faculties alert. So neighboring apparently a train at rest and harm- station, less, be transformed in a into instrument few seconds *14 of destruction.”
The further criticism found in the note in 56 A.L.R. at page equally cogent: 654 is
“In situations, however, most car, driver of a un- considering accompanied, advisability leaving his ear going point get he which can an unobstructed track, view of the is as likely, in the exercise reasonable care, against to decide it, course as favor of for the point reason that from his great there pos- view sibility, adopt if course, he does that he be struck sight a train which comes after he his back to turns car, that, return to his as there if adopt he does course, may he struck train which he would have if gone seen he had left his ear and to the track. Save in exceptional situations above to, referred it would seem that logical application require of the doctrine would driver, car, go again as soon as returns back track, point get from which he could an un- repeat process obstructed view, indefinitely until assured that there would be other trains.” long
I am convinced that the time is overdue the Cali- repudiate express fornia courts to terms ridiculous so-called look refinement and listen rule.