What is the evidence against the appellant in a motor vehicle accident case?

Stated most strongly against the appellant, as we must under proper appellate technique, the evidence shows that Menezes was driving his automobile at approximately 60 miles per hour over a country road which he had never traveled before; he admitted the obvious, that he knew there were crossroads in this community, as he had lived 50 years in the west side country. To his right, as he approached the intersection, he could have had a view for several hundred feet along the intersecting road in the direction from which the other car was being driven. He had before him a stop sign which required that he bring his car to a halt before entering the intersection. He was warned that there was a stop sign ahead while he was approximately 200 feet away from it. Yet, he looked straight ahead, did nothing in discharge of his duty and entered the intersection where the collision occurred. Under these circumstances, was the jury entitled to find that he was guilty of wilful misconduct, that is to say, that he intentionally did something forbidden by law or by the requirement of due care either with a knowledge that serious injury was a probable result or with a wanton and reckless disregard of its possible result? (Meek v. Fowler, 3 Cal.2d 420, 426, 45 P.2d 194.)