What is the effect of an instruction in a motor vehicle accident where an instruction is qualified by language substantially as given in the instant action?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Vernon v. Owl Truck & Const. Co., 137 Cal.App.2d 437, 290 P.2d 603 (Cal. App. 1955):
The judgments in Angier v. Bruck, 56 Cal.App.2d 55, 131 P.2d 876, and Carlson v. Shewalter, 110 Cal.App.2d 655, 243 P.2d 549, 552, were reversed for the reason that, under the facts of those cases, an instruction substantially as given in the instant action and hereinbefore quoted should have been [137 Cal.App.2d 439] qualified by language substantially the same as the third sentence of B.A.J.I. 138, also hereinbefore quoted.
In Angier v. Bruck, supra, there was evidence from which the jury might have found that respondent saw appellant's automobile traveling toward the point of impact at a speed too great to be stopped before the impact, and that respondent could have avoided the collision.
"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.
