How have courts interpreted the presumption of due care in a motor vehicle accident case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Klein v. Southern Pac. Co., 203 Cal.App.2d 72, 21 Cal.Rptr. 233 (Cal. App. 1962):
[203 Cal.App.2d 77] Appellants' evidence was not irreconcilable with the presumption. It must be remembered that the appellants were guest passengers and any negligence on the part of the driver, therefore, would not be imputed to them. (Krause v. Rarity, 210 Cal. 644, 293 P. 62, 77 A.L.R. 1327.)
Furthermore, the mere fact that other witnesses testified on behalf of appellants to the events leading up to the accident does not deprive appellants of their right to this presumption. As stated in Lovett v. Hitchcock, 192 Cal.App.2d 806, 809, 14 Cal.Rptr. 117, 118: '[T]he mere fact that others testify fully as to the acts of plaintiff does not bar application of the presumption.'
Therefore, the trial court was entirely correct in instructing the jury as to the presumption of due care on the part of appellants since appellants were unable to testify by reason of loss of memory due to the accident. (Gigliotti v. Nunes, 45 Cal.2d 85, 286 P.2d 809.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
