California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Spann v. Ballesty, 276 Cal.App.2d 754, 81 Cal.Rptr. 229 (Cal. App. 1969):
In regard to the first element, it could reasonably have been found as a fact that plaintiff was contributorily negligent for failure to maintain a lookout for a vehicle coming through the intersection once he had started to cross the street. (Smith v. Sugich Co., 179 Cal.App.2d 299, 311, 3 Cal.Rptr. 718.) The fact that plaintiff progressed 43 feet westerly of the east curb of Orange Avenue before ascertaining his danger could in itself warrant such a conclusion. In addition, plaintiff testified that he did not see the car until it was only a few feet from him. Defendant testified that plaintiff was looking either to the left or straight ahead, and was not looking in the direction of the oncoming car. Defendant also confirmed plaintiff's testimony that he did not see the car until it was practically on top of
Page 233
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.