TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Page v. Mazzei

E. C. PAGE Et Al., Respondents, v. R. MAZZEI, Appellant

Page v. Mazzei, 3 P.2d 11 (Cal. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 21, 1931
Docket
No. L.A. 13068.
Judges
Waste
Citations
3 P.2d 11213 Cal. 6441931 Cal. LEXIS 573

Opinion of the Court — Waste

WASTE, C. J.

Under proper instructions, and on ample evidence to support its verdict, the jury awarded the plaintiffs substantial damages for injuries sustained by Mrs. Page when the automobile of defendant crashed into the automobile of plaintiffs, at the intersection of two roads. The case, in all material respects, is so similar to the case of Couchman v. Snelling, 111 Cal. App. 192 [ 295 Pac. 845, 847 ], recently decided, that we approve and adopt the language of Mr. Presiding Justice Tyler in the opinion handed down in that cause, viz.: “ Where a car has actually entered an intersection before, the other approaches it, the driver of the first car has the right to assume that he will be given the right of way and be permitted to pass through the intersection without danger of collision. He has a right to assume that the driver of the other car will obey the law, slow down, and yield the right of way, if slowing down be necessary to prevent a collision.

(Keyes v. Hawley, 100 Cal. App. 53, 60 [ 279 Pac. 674 ].) Nor is a plaintiff required to yield the right of way to one a considerable distance away whose duty it is to slow down in crossing an intersection.

(Whitelaw v. McGilliard, 179 Cal. 349 [ 176 Pac. 679 ].) Whether or not, therefore, plaintiff after observing the approa'ch of defendant’s car, its position, and the rate of speed it was traveling and keeping the same within his side vision, was justified in proceeding upon his rightful way across the intersection in advance of defendant presents a question upon which reasonable minds *646 might differ and was therefore one for the jury to determine (citing cases).”

The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.

Curtis, J., Preston, J., Langdon, J., Shenk, J., and Sea-well, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 26 cases

View all citing references →
1931: 31932: 21934: 11935: 11936: 41938: 21939: 11940: 21942: 11944: 11946: 11947: 21949: 11950: 11951: 11955: 11962: 119312026peak 1936 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Satterlee v. Orange Glenn School District177 P.2d 279 (Cal. 1947)
  2. Westcott v. Hamilton202 Cal. App. 2d 261 (1962)
  3. Grasso v. Cunial235 P.2d 32 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
  4. Ebert v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.129 P.2d 135 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
  5. Casselman v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.98 P.2d 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)
  6. Cowan v. Market Street Railway Co.47 P.2d 752 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935)

Most recent

  1. Westcott v. Hamilton202 Cal. App. 2d 261 (1962)
  2. Cook v. Ross285 P.2d 25 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)
  3. Grasso v. Cunial235 P.2d 32 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
  4. Fresno City Lines, Inc. v. Herman217 P.2d 987 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)
  5. Nelson v. Colbeck211 P.2d 878 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949)
  6. Paul v. Key System180 P.2d 940 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Couchman v. Snelling, 295 P. 845 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931) 37
Keyes v. Hawley, 279 P. 674 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929) 33
Whitelaw v. McGilliard, 176 P. 679 (Cal. 1918) 24

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list