Connerly v. Correia

3 Citing cases

  1. Cadwell v. Anschutz

    4 Cal.2d 709 (Cal. 1935)   Cited 7 times

    We are satisfied, however, that the jury might properly conclude from the circumstances shown that this act was negligent. (See Connerly v. Correia, 66 Cal.App. 570 [ 226 P. 841].) [1] It is also quite clear that plaintiff was negligent in seeking to pass in front of defendant's car without sounding her horn. (Vehicle Act, sec. 125 (d).)

  2. Green v. Key System Transit Lines

    116 Cal.App.2d 512 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 13 times

    The motorman testified likewise that he saw plaintiff trying to shift gears, although he places the truck at that moment 2 feet from the track. These mathematical calculations "may serve as matter for argument before a jury" ( Dillon v. Qualls, 63 Cal.App. 637, 641 [ 219 P. 754]) but they are based upon mere estimates and upon occurrences concerning which in Connerly v. Correia, 66 Cal.App. 570, the court stated (p. 574 [ 226 P. 841]): "Such occurrences take place so quickly that it is not to be expected any one would be able to explain step by step the events as they take place or give anything more definite than a general statement of the events as they were impressed upon the mind by the rapidity of their occurrence." "This is especially true in automobile accidents.

  3. De Arman v. Connelly

    134 Cal.App. 173 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)   Cited 17 times

    It is further to be observed that the court found that appellant Mills abruptly turned the tow-car to the west across the highway without giving any arm signal of his intention so to do and that this finding is amply supported by the evidence. The failure of appellant Mills to have given a proper signal before turning to his left was, under the circumstances here appearing, clearly in violation of sections 130 and 131 of the California Vehicle Act and may not be disregarded ( Connerly v. Correia, 66 Cal.App. 570 [ 226 P. 841]). [3] Complaint is voiced that the sum of $6,000 awarded by the court as compensation for the injuries sustained by respondent Gene Cash De Arman is excessive.