unavoidable accident instruction in California

1961Co., 53 Cal.2d 826 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 350 P.2d 65 ], wherein the unavoidable accident instruction was given before the giving of such an instruction was condemned in Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652 [ 320 P.2d 500 ].

1961Co., 53 Cal.2d 826 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 350 P.2d 65 ], wherein the unavoidable accident instruction was given before the giving of such an instruction was condemned in Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652 [ 320 P.2d 500 ].

1938(Pearce v. Elbe, 98 Cal.App. 101, 106 [ 276 P. 389 ]), and it is proper in such a case for the court upon request to instruct the jury on the doctrine of unavoidable accident.

1938(Pearce v. Elbe, 98 Cal.App. 101, 106 [ 276 P. 389 ]), and it is proper in such a case for the court upon request to instruct the jury on the doctrine of unavoidable accident.

1958The definition of the words ‘unavoidable accident’ as used in section 602 would not involve any of the problems which arise in connection with the challenged instruction(Emphasis added.) While we do not find it necessary to decide whether a special situation within the contemplation of the above quotation is limited to a case where a statute makes reference to an unavoidable accident (see Rayner v. Ramirez, 159 Cal.App.2d 372, 377-378 [ 324 P.2d 83 ]), it is clear that it is error to give the unavoidable accident instruction in a negligence case where plaintiff has the burden of proving that t

1958The definition of the words ‘unavoidable accident’ as used in section 602 would not involve any of the problems which arise in connection with the challenged instruction(Emphasis added.) While we do not find it necessary to decide whether a special situation within the contemplation of the above quotation is limited to a case where a statute makes reference to an unavoidable accident (see Rayner v. Ramirez, 159 Cal.App.2d 372, 377-378 [ 324 P.2d 83 ]), it is clear that it is error to give the unavoidable accident instruction in a negligence case where plaintiff has the burden of proving that t

1952(Sitkei v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 25 Cal.App.2d 294, 297 [4] [ 77 P.2d 311 ] (hearing denied by the Supreme Court); Wertheim v. Mears, 104 Cal.App.2d 120, 121 [1] [ 231 P.2d 89 ].) Third: Did the trial court err in refusing to give the following instructions requested by plaintiffs? (a) “One may not be said to assume a risk that can come to bim only through the negligence of another that he does not anticipate and which would not be anticipated by a person of ordinary prudence in like situation.” No. The substance of this instruction was given by the court in the following: “A person who, himself

1952(Sitkei v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 25 Cal.App.2d 294, 297 [4] [ 77 P.2d 311 ] (hearing denied by the Supreme Court); Wertheim v. Mears, 104 Cal.App.2d 120, 121 [1] [ 231 P.2d 89 ].) Third: Did the trial court err in refusing to give the following instructions requested by plaintiffs? (a) “One may not be said to assume a risk that can come to bim only through the negligence of another that he does not anticipate and which would not be anticipated by a person of ordinary prudence in like situation.” No. The substance of this instruction was given by the court in the following: “A person who, himself

1959In Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590 [ 322 P.2d 981 ], the unavoidable accident instruction was held prejudicial.

1959In Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590 [ 322 P.2d 981 ], the unavoidable accident instruction was held prejudicial.

1960(See Borg v. McDonnell, 172 Cal.App.2d 260, 264 [ 342 P.2d 297 ] ; Prentice v. Roberts, 171 Cal.App.2d 313, 319 [ 340 P.2d 43 ]; Lockhart v. Rini, *450 171 Cal.App.2d 293, 298 [ 340 P.2d 344 ] ; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742, 744 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590, 592 [ 322 P.2d 981 ].) We are of the view, however, that the judgment should be affirmed.

1960(See Borg v. McDonnell, 172 Cal.App.2d 260, 264 [ 342 P.2d 297 ] ; Prentice v. Roberts, 171 Cal.App.2d 313, 319 [ 340 P.2d 43 ]; Lockhart v. Rini, *450 171 Cal.App.2d 293, 298 [ 340 P.2d 344 ] ; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742, 744 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590, 592 [ 322 P.2d 981 ].) We are of the view, however, that the judgment should be affirmed.

1959(Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590 [ 322 P.2d 981 ]; Britton v. Gunderson, 160 Cal.App.2d 66 [ 324 P.2d 938 ]; Brenner v. Beardsley, 159 Cal.App.2d 304 [ 323 P.2d 841 ]; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Grant v. Mueller, 160 Cal.App.2d 804 [ 325 P.2d 680 ].)” To the same effect are Perrotti v. Samson, 163 Cal.App.2d 280, 285 [ 329 P.2d 310 ], and McGuire v. Navarro, 165 Cal.App.2d 661, 667 [ 332 P.2d 361 ], The last cited case involved a collision of automobiles.

1959(Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590 [ 322 P.2d 981 ]; Britton v. Gunderson, 160 Cal.App.2d 66 [ 324 P.2d 938 ]; Brenner v. Beardsley, 159 Cal.App.2d 304 [ 323 P.2d 841 ]; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Grant v. Mueller, 160 Cal.App.2d 804 [ 325 P.2d 680 ].)” To the same effect are Perrotti v. Samson, 163 Cal.App.2d 280, 285 [ 329 P.2d 310 ], and McGuire v. Navarro, 165 Cal.App.2d 661, 667 [ 332 P.2d 361 ], The last cited case involved a collision of automobiles.

1959(Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590 [ 322 P.2d 981 ]; Britton v. Gunderson, 160 Cal.App.2d 66 [ 324 P.2d 938 ]; Brenner v. Beardsley, 159 Cal.App.2d 304 [ 323 P.2d 841 ]; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Grant v. Mueller, 160 Cal.App.2d 804 [ 325 P.2d 680 ].)” To the same effect are Perrotti v. Samson, 163 Cal.App.2d 280, 285 [ 329 P.2d 310 ], and McGuire v. Navarro, 165 Cal.App.2d 661, 667 [ 332 P.2d 361 ], The last cited case involved a collision of automobiles.

1959(Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590 [ 322 P.2d 981 ]; Britton v. Gunderson, 160 Cal.App.2d 66 [ 324 P.2d 938 ]; Brenner v. Beardsley, 159 Cal.App.2d 304 [ 323 P.2d 841 ]; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Grant v. Mueller, 160 Cal.App.2d 804 [ 325 P.2d 680 ].)” To the same effect are Perrotti v. Samson, 163 Cal.App.2d 280, 285 [ 329 P.2d 310 ], and McGuire v. Navarro, 165 Cal.App.2d 661, 667 [ 332 P.2d 361 ], The last cited case involved a collision of automobiles.

1959(Halleck v. Brown, 164 Cal.App.2d 586, 590 [ 330 P.2d 852 ].) The determination whether, in a specific instance, the probable effect of an instruction on unavoidable accident has been to mislead the jury and whether the error has been prejudicial so as to require reversal depends on all the circumstances of-the ease, including the evidence and other instructions given. *319 (Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652, 660-661 [ 320 P.2d 500 ].) In Halleck v. Brown, 164 Cal.App.2d 586 [ 330 P.2d 852 ], this court said (p. 589) : “It is well settled that the giving of the unavoidable accident inst

1959(Halleck v. Brown, 164 Cal.App.2d 586, 590 [ 330 P.2d 852 ].) The determination whether, in a specific instance, the probable effect of an instruction on unavoidable accident has been to mislead the jury and whether the error has been prejudicial so as to require reversal depends on all the circumstances of-the ease, including the evidence and other instructions given. *319 (Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652, 660-661 [ 320 P.2d 500 ].) In Halleck v. Brown, 164 Cal.App.2d 586 [ 330 P.2d 852 ], this court said (p. 589) : “It is well settled that the giving of the unavoidable accident inst

1959(Alarid v. Vanier, 50 Cal.2d 617, 625 [ 327 P.2d 897 ]; Grasgreen v. Acme Auto Parts, 165 Cal.App.2d 680, 684 [ 332 P.2d 337 ]; Rayner v. Ramirez, 159 Cal.App.2d 372, 377 [ 324 P.2d 83 ].) The judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant Anderson and in favor of the defendants Trautwein Brothers against the plaintiffs is affirmed.

1959(Alarid v. Vanier, 50 Cal.2d 617, 625 [ 327 P.2d 897 ]; Grasgreen v. Acme Auto Parts, 165 Cal.App.2d 680, 684 [ 332 P.2d 337 ]; Rayner v. Ramirez, 159 Cal.App.2d 372, 377 [ 324 P.2d 83 ].) The judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant Anderson and in favor of the defendants Trautwein Brothers against the plaintiffs is affirmed.

1957In Parker v. Womack, 37 Cal.2d 116, 122 [ 230 P.2d 823 ], the court, in discussing an instruction on the doctrine of unavoidable accident, said: “Mrs. Parker asserts that the challenged instruction should not have been given because no evidence of any kind was offered by Womack tending to prove that something happened to cause the collision which he could not have avoided by the exercise of reasonable care.

1957In Parker v. Womack, 37 Cal.2d 116, 122 [ 230 P.2d 823 ], the court, in discussing an instruction on the doctrine of unavoidable accident, said: “Mrs. Parker asserts that the challenged instruction should not have been given because no evidence of any kind was offered by Womack tending to prove that something happened to cause the collision which he could not have avoided by the exercise of reasonable care.

1955Co., 111 Cal.App.2d 626 [ 245 P.2d 583 ], the court lists eases in which it was held that the failure to give the unavoidable accident instruction was not error., and referred to Jaeger v. Chapman, 95 Cal.App.2d 520 [ 213 P.2d 404 ], as holding that while it would not have been improper to give such an instruction in that case, it “ ‘. . . was not error to refuse to give it where all elements of defendant’s liability were' covered by other instructions.’ ” (They were in our ease.)- The court then discusses the Parker v. Womack case, supra, pointing out that there the trial judge gave such an i

1955Co., 111 Cal.App.2d 626 [ 245 P.2d 583 ], the court lists eases in which it was held that the failure to give the unavoidable accident instruction was not error., and referred to Jaeger v. Chapman, 95 Cal.App.2d 520 [ 213 P.2d 404 ], as holding that while it would not have been improper to give such an instruction in that case, it “ ‘. . . was not error to refuse to give it where all elements of defendant’s liability were' covered by other instructions.’ ” (They were in our ease.)- The court then discusses the Parker v. Womack case, supra, pointing out that there the trial judge gave such an i

1956That the refusal of an unavoidable accident instruction is not error when the subject is thus adequately covered was held in Jaeger v. Chapman, 95 Cal.App.2d 520, 522 [ 213 P.2d 404 ]; McMahon v. Marshall, 111 Cal.App.2d 248, 250 [ 244 P.2d 481 ]; Lloyd v. Southern Pac.

1956That the refusal of an unavoidable accident instruction is not error when the subject is thus adequately covered was held in Jaeger v. Chapman, 95 Cal.App.2d 520, 522 [ 213 P.2d 404 ]; McMahon v. Marshall, 111 Cal.App.2d 248, 250 [ 244 P.2d 481 ]; Lloyd v. Southern Pac.

1952(Sitkei v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 25 Cal.App.2d 294, 297 [4] [ 77 P.2d 311 ] (hearing denied by the Supreme Court); Wertheim v. Mears, 104 Cal.App.2d 120, 121 [1] [ 231 P.2d 89 ].) Third: Did the trial court err in refusing to give the following instructions requested by plaintiffs? (a) “One may not be said to assume a risk that can come to bim only through the negligence of another that he does not anticipate and which would not be anticipated by a person of ordinary prudence in like situation.” No. The substance of this instruction was given by the court in the following: “A person who, himself

1952(Sitkei v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 25 Cal.App.2d 294, 297 [4] [ 77 P.2d 311 ] (hearing denied by the Supreme Court); Wertheim v. Mears, 104 Cal.App.2d 120, 121 [1] [ 231 P.2d 89 ].) Third: Did the trial court err in refusing to give the following instructions requested by plaintiffs? (a) “One may not be said to assume a risk that can come to bim only through the negligence of another that he does not anticipate and which would not be anticipated by a person of ordinary prudence in like situation.” No. The substance of this instruction was given by the court in the following: “A person who, himself

1960(See Borg v. McDonnell, 172 Cal.App.2d 260, 264 [ 342 P.2d 297 ] ; Prentice v. Roberts, 171 Cal.App.2d 313, 319 [ 340 P.2d 43 ]; Lockhart v. Rini, *450 171 Cal.App.2d 293, 298 [ 340 P.2d 344 ] ; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742, 744 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590, 592 [ 322 P.2d 981 ].) We are of the view, however, that the judgment should be affirmed.

1960(See Borg v. McDonnell, 172 Cal.App.2d 260, 264 [ 342 P.2d 297 ] ; Prentice v. Roberts, 171 Cal.App.2d 313, 319 [ 340 P.2d 43 ]; Lockhart v. Rini, *450 171 Cal.App.2d 293, 298 [ 340 P.2d 344 ] ; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742, 744 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590, 592 [ 322 P.2d 981 ].) We are of the view, however, that the judgment should be affirmed.

1960(See Borg v. McDonnell, 172 Cal.App.2d 260, 264 [ 342 P.2d 297 ] ; Prentice v. Roberts, 171 Cal.App.2d 313, 319 [ 340 P.2d 43 ]; Lockhart v. Rini, *450 171 Cal.App.2d 293, 298 [ 340 P.2d 344 ] ; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742, 744 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590, 592 [ 322 P.2d 981 ].) We are of the view, however, that the judgment should be affirmed.

1960(See Borg v. McDonnell, 172 Cal.App.2d 260, 264 [ 342 P.2d 297 ] ; Prentice v. Roberts, 171 Cal.App.2d 313, 319 [ 340 P.2d 43 ]; Lockhart v. Rini, *450 171 Cal.App.2d 293, 298 [ 340 P.2d 344 ] ; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742, 744 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590, 592 [ 322 P.2d 981 ].) We are of the view, however, that the judgment should be affirmed.

1960(See Borg v. McDonnell, 172 Cal.App.2d 260, 264 [ 342 P.2d 297 ] ; Prentice v. Roberts, 171 Cal.App.2d 313, 319 [ 340 P.2d 43 ]; Lockhart v. Rini, *450 171 Cal.App.2d 293, 298 [ 340 P.2d 344 ] ; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742, 744 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590, 592 [ 322 P.2d 981 ].) We are of the view, however, that the judgment should be affirmed.

1960(See Borg v. McDonnell, 172 Cal.App.2d 260, 264 [ 342 P.2d 297 ] ; Prentice v. Roberts, 171 Cal.App.2d 313, 319 [ 340 P.2d 43 ]; Lockhart v. Rini, *450 171 Cal.App.2d 293, 298 [ 340 P.2d 344 ] ; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742, 744 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590, 592 [ 322 P.2d 981 ].) We are of the view, however, that the judgment should be affirmed.

1960(Levin v. Union Oil Co., 174 Cal.App.2d 402 at 404 [ 345 P.2d 14 ].) As stated in Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, at 660 and 661: ‘ ‘ The determination whether, in a specific instance, the probable effect of the instruction has been to mislead the jury and whether the error has been prejudicial so as to require reversal depends on all the circumstances of the case, including the evidence and the other instructions given.

1960(Levin v. Union Oil Co., 174 Cal.App.2d 402 at 404 [ 345 P.2d 14 ].) As stated in Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, at 660 and 661: ‘ ‘ The determination whether, in a specific instance, the probable effect of the instruction has been to mislead the jury and whether the error has been prejudicial so as to require reversal depends on all the circumstances of the case, including the evidence and the other instructions given.

1960Co., 127 Cal.App.2d 491, 503 [ 274 P.2d 194 ]; Abelseth v. City & County of San Francisco, 129 Cal.App. 552, 557 [ 19 P.2d 53 ].) The court also erred in giving the unavoidable accident instruction declared to be confusing and misleading in Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652 , 657 et seq. [ 320 P.2d 500 ], the opinion in which was filed on the same day the verdict in this ease was rendered.

1960Co., 127 Cal.App.2d 491, 503 [ 274 P.2d 194 ]; Abelseth v. City & County of San Francisco, 129 Cal.App. 552, 557 [ 19 P.2d 53 ].) The court also erred in giving the unavoidable accident instruction declared to be confusing and misleading in Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652 , 657 et seq. [ 320 P.2d 500 ], the opinion in which was filed on the same day the verdict in this ease was rendered.

1960(County of Los Angeles v. Faus, 48 Cal.2d 672 at 681 [ 312 P.2d 680 ].) In Guerrero v. Westgate Lumber Co., 164 Cal.App.2d 612 at 617 [ 331 P.2d 107 ] (cited by the defendant) the appellate court overlooked the appellant’s failure to mention the Butigan rule in his opening brief.

1960(County of Los Angeles v. Faus, 48 Cal.2d 672 at 681 [ 312 P.2d 680 ].) In Guerrero v. Westgate Lumber Co., 164 Cal.App.2d 612 at 617 [ 331 P.2d 107 ] (cited by the defendant) the appellate court overlooked the appellant’s failure to mention the Butigan rule in his opening brief.

1960(County of Los Angeles v. Faus, 48 Cal.2d 672 at 681 [ 312 P.2d 680 ].) In Guerrero v. Westgate Lumber Co., 164 Cal.App.2d 612 at 617 [ 331 P.2d 107 ] (cited by the defendant) the appellate court overlooked the appellant’s failure to mention the Butigan rule in his opening brief.

1960(County of Los Angeles v. Faus, 48 Cal.2d 672 at 681 [ 312 P.2d 680 ].) In Guerrero v. Westgate Lumber Co., 164 Cal.App.2d 612 at 617 [ 331 P.2d 107 ] (cited by the defendant) the appellate court overlooked the appellant’s failure to mention the Butigan rule in his opening brief.

1960Co., 127 Cal.App.2d 491, 503 [ 274 P.2d 194 ]; Abelseth v. City & County of San Francisco, 129 Cal.App. 552, 557 [ 19 P.2d 53 ].) The court also erred in giving the unavoidable accident instruction declared to be confusing and misleading in Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652 , 657 et seq. [ 320 P.2d 500 ], the opinion in which was filed on the same day the verdict in this ease was rendered.

1960Co., 127 Cal.App.2d 491, 503 [ 274 P.2d 194 ]; Abelseth v. City & County of San Francisco, 129 Cal.App. 552, 557 [ 19 P.2d 53 ].) The court also erred in giving the unavoidable accident instruction declared to be confusing and misleading in Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652 , 657 et seq. [ 320 P.2d 500 ], the opinion in which was filed on the same day the verdict in this ease was rendered.

1959(See Shehtanian v. Kenny, 156 Cal.App.2d 576, 579 [ 319 P.2d 699 ] ; MacLean v. City & County of San Francisco, 151 Cal.App.2d 133, 141-142 [ 311 P.2d 158 ] ; Rubalcaba v. Sweeney, 168 Cal.App.2d 1, 4-5 [ 335 P.2d 157 ].) Finally, plaintiff argues that prejudicial error was committed by the giving of the unavoidable accident instruction.

1959(See Shehtanian v. Kenny, 156 Cal.App.2d 576, 579 [ 319 P.2d 699 ] ; MacLean v. City & County of San Francisco, 151 Cal.App.2d 133, 141-142 [ 311 P.2d 158 ] ; Rubalcaba v. Sweeney, 168 Cal.App.2d 1, 4-5 [ 335 P.2d 157 ].) Finally, plaintiff argues that prejudicial error was committed by the giving of the unavoidable accident instruction.

1959Co., 32 Cal.2d 157, 167 [ 195 P.2d 416 ]; McGowan v. City of Los Angeles, 100 Cal.App.2d 386, 396 [ 223 P.2d 862 , 21 A.L.R.2d 1206 ].) No prejudice resulted from giving the unavoidable accident instruction in this case.

1959Co., 32 Cal.2d 157, 167 [ 195 P.2d 416 ]; McGowan v. City of Los Angeles, 100 Cal.App.2d 386, 396 [ 223 P.2d 862 , 21 A.L.R.2d 1206 ].) No prejudice resulted from giving the unavoidable accident instruction in this case.

1959Co., 32 Cal.2d 157, 167 [ 195 P.2d 416 ]; McGowan v. City of Los Angeles, 100 Cal.App.2d 386, 396 [ 223 P.2d 862 , 21 A.L.R.2d 1206 ].) No prejudice resulted from giving the unavoidable accident instruction in this case.

1959Co., 32 Cal.2d 157, 167 [ 195 P.2d 416 ]; McGowan v. City of Los Angeles, 100 Cal.App.2d 386, 396 [ 223 P.2d 862 , 21 A.L.R.2d 1206 ].) No prejudice resulted from giving the unavoidable accident instruction in this case.

1959(Alarid v. Vanier, 50 Cal.2d 617, 625 [ 327 P.2d 897 ]; Grasgreen v. Acme Auto Parts, 165 Cal.App.2d 680, 684 [ 332 P.2d 337 ]; Rayner v. Ramirez, 159 Cal.App.2d 372, 377 [ 324 P.2d 83 ].) The judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant Anderson and in favor of the defendants Trautwein Brothers against the plaintiffs is affirmed.

1959(Alarid v. Vanier, 50 Cal.2d 617, 625 [ 327 P.2d 897 ]; Grasgreen v. Acme Auto Parts, 165 Cal.App.2d 680, 684 [ 332 P.2d 337 ]; Rayner v. Ramirez, 159 Cal.App.2d 372, 377 [ 324 P.2d 83 ].) The judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant Anderson and in favor of the defendants Trautwein Brothers against the plaintiffs is affirmed.

1959(Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590 [ 322 P.2d 981 ]; Britton v. Gunderson, 160 Cal.App.2d 66 [ 324 P.2d 938 ]; Brenner v. Beardsley, 159 Cal.App.2d 304 [ 323 P.2d 841 ]; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Grant v. Mueller, 160 Cal.App.2d 804 [ 325 P.2d 680 ].)” To the same effect are Perrotti v. Samson, 163 Cal.App.2d 280, 285 [ 329 P.2d 310 ], and McGuire v. Navarro, 165 Cal.App.2d 661, 667 [ 332 P.2d 361 ], The last cited case involved a collision of automobiles.

1959(Martz v. Ruiz, 158 Cal.App.2d 590 [ 322 P.2d 981 ]; Britton v. Gunderson, 160 Cal.App.2d 66 [ 324 P.2d 938 ]; Brenner v. Beardsley, 159 Cal.App.2d 304 [ 323 P.2d 841 ]; Emerton v. Acres, 160 Cal.App.2d 742 [ 325 P.2d 685 ] ; Grant v. Mueller, 160 Cal.App.2d 804 [ 325 P.2d 680 ].)” To the same effect are Perrotti v. Samson, 163 Cal.App.2d 280, 285 [ 329 P.2d 310 ], and McGuire v. Navarro, 165 Cal.App.2d 661, 667 [ 332 P.2d 361 ], The last cited case involved a collision of automobiles.