" Weeks v. Raper, 139 Cal.App.2d 737, 741 [ 294 P.2d 178]: "Therefore, the trial court should have instructed the jury that she was not guilty of contributory negligence. ( Ramos v. Linggi, 125 Cal.App.2d 632, 635-636 [ 270 P.2d 857].)
While the issue of defendant's negligence may have been one for the jury, the only reasonable conclusion is that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence and the jury should have been instructed accordingly. The holding of the majority here is in direct conflict with Gray v. Brinkerhoff, 41 Cal.2d 180 [ 258 P.2d 834], and the very recent case of Weeks v. Raper, 139 Cal.App.2d 737 [ 294 P.2d 178] (hearing denied by this court on May 2, 1956). While the evidence here is such that reasonable minds might differ on the issue of defendant's negligence, this cannot be true as to plaintiff's conduct, which was entirely blameless under the law applicable to one in his position.
(See Hom v. Clark (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 622, 659 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 11].) In Weeks v. Raper (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 737, 740-742 [ 294 P.2d 178] (hearing denied) the plaintiff wife was driving along a two-lane road at about 2 a.m. The defendant, proceeding behind her, gradually overtook her.