How have the courts interpreted the test for contributory negligence in a motor vehicle accident?

Defendant guardedly concedes the error by arguing that there was no prejudicial error since the evidence disclosed no negligence on the part of the defendant. The record, however, reflect that defendant saw the little girl riding her bicycle toward him on his side of the road when he was 100 feet from her; that he did not slow down or apply his brakes until he was 50 feet from her; that his car left 51 feet of skid marks and that the 3 year 7 months old boy and defendant's[190 Cal.App.2d 477] car collided on the edge of the highway near the entrance to the private driveway leading from the boy's home. On such a record, this court cannot say that the jury found the defendant free from negligence and that it was not influenced by the instructions defining contributory negligence of a child. As was said in Robinson v. Cable, 55 Cal.2d 428, 11 Cal.Rptr. 377, 378, '[w]here it seems probable that the jury's verdict may have been based on the erroneous instruction prejudice appears and this court 'should not speculate upon the basis of the verdict. [citations].''