![[Contents]](../icons/rule_toc.gif){kind=icon}
It is the duty of the driver of any vehicle using a public street or highway to exercise ordinary care at all times to avoid placing the driver or others in danger; [and] to use like care to avoid an accident; [to keep a proper lookout for traffic and other conditions to be reasonably anticipated] [and] [to maintain a proper control of the vehicle] | TOP |
The term "right-of-way" means the privilege given by law to one person over another of the immediate use of the same space on a highway.
However, one who has the right of way is not excused from exercising ordinary care to avoid an accident. | TOP |
A person who has the right of way may intentionally waive it, or may act in such a manner as to indicate to a reasonably prudent person that [he] [she] intends to waive or has waived the right of way.
[However, a waiver by the driver of one vehicle is not in itself a waiver of the right of way by the driver of any other vehicle.] | TOP |
An immediate hazard exists whenever a reasonably prudent person in the position of the driver, having made the required stop at an intersection, would realize that another vehicle in or approaching the intersection would probably collide with [his] [her] vehicle if [he] [she] then proceeded to enter or cross the intersection. | TOP |
An immediate hazard exists whenever a reasonably prudent person in the position of the driver, upon approaching a yield right of way sign at an intersection, would realize that another vehicle in or approaching the intersection would probably collide with [his] [her] vehicle if [he] [she] then proceeded to enter or cross the intersection. | TOP |
The words just quoted from the Vehicle Code, namely, that "no person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety," mean that before starting to turn a vehicle on a public highway or move right or left, and while making the turn or such movement, the driver of the vehicle must use such precaution as would satisfy a reasonably prudent person, acting under similar circumstances, that the turn or movement could be made safely. They do not mean that the driver of a motor vehicle, before making such a turn or movement, must know that there is absolutely no possibility of accident.
[The driver of a vehicle making a [left] [right] turn across more than one lane of a roadway owes this same duty of care to the vehicles in each lane [he] [she] is attempting to cross.] | TOP |
A vehicle is so close as to constitute a hazard to another vehicle headed in the opposite direction and intending to turn left at an intersection whenever a reasonable person in the position of the driver intending to turn left would realize that the two vehicles would probably collide at some time during the turning movement if [he] [she] did not yield the right of way. | TOP |
The speed at which a vehicle is driven upon a highway [not in excess of __________ miles per hour], considered as an isolated fact and simply in terms of so many miles an hour, is not proof either of negligence or of the exercise of ordinary care.
Whether driving at that rate of speed is negligent, is a question of fact, the answer to which depends on all the surrounding circumstances.
The basic speed law of this state [, as provided by Section 22350 of our Vehicle Code,] is as follows:
"No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."
A violation of this basic rule is negligence. | TOP |
The [prima facie] [posted] speed limit [at the place] [within the intersection] where the accident occurred was __________ miles per hour. This fact should be considered by you, together with all of the other evidence, in determining whether or not the [plaintiff] [or] [defendant] was negligent. However, proof that a vehicle was traveling at a speed greater or less than __________ miles per hour does not, by itself, prove that the driver of that vehicle was or was not negligent.
The test is: was the vehicle operated at a speed which violated the basic speed law of this State as set forth in
Section 22350 of the Vehicle Code and which reads as follows:
"No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."
A violation of this basic rule is negligence. | TOP |
The maximum speed limit at the place where the accident occurred is provided in Vehicle Code, Section 22349, as follows:
"No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour." | TOP |
California Vehicle Code Section 23152 provides: "It is unlawful for any person who is [under the influence of any alcoholic beverage,] [under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and any drug,] [under the influence of any drug,] to drive a vehicle."
[The term "drug", as used in this instruction, means any substance or combination of substances, other than alcohol, which could so affect the nervous system, brain, or muscles of a person as to impair, to an appreciable degree, the ability to drive a vehicle in the manner that an ordinarily prudent and cautious person, in full possession of [his] [or] [her] faculties, using reasonable care, would drive a similar vehicle under like conditions.]
A person is [under the influence of any alcoholic beverage] [under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and any drug] [under the influence of any drug] when as a result of [drinking such beverage] [and] [using any drug] [his] [or] [her] physical or mental abilities are impaired to the extent that such person is not able to drive a vehicle in the manner that a person of ordinary prudence would drive under the same or similar circumstances. | TOP |
One is not necessarily under the influence of an alcoholic beverage as a result of taking one or more drinks. The circumstances and effect must be considered. Whether a person was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at a certain time is an issue for you to decide. | TOP |
Whether a person involved in an accident was then intoxicated or under the influence of an alcoholic beverage is an issue for you to consider in determining whether such person was negligent. In making this determination, the question to be answered is whether as a result of drinking an alcoholic beverage the individual's physical or mental abilities were impaired so that such person was unable to conduct [himself] [or] [herself] with the caution of a sober person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances.
A person is not necessarily intoxicated or under the influence of an alcoholic beverage as a result of taking one or more drinks. The circumstances and the effect must be considered.
Intoxication is no excuse for failure to act as a reasonably prudent person. A person who is intoxicated or under the influence of an alcoholic beverage is held to the same standard of care as a sober person.
Every person using a public street or highway, whether as a pedestrian or as a driver of a vehicle, has a duty to exercise ordinary care at all times to avoid placing [himself] [or] [herself] or others in danger and to use like care to avoid an accident from which an injury might result.
While it is the duty of both the driver of a motor vehicle and a pedestrian, using a public roadway, to exercise ordinary care, that duty does not require necessarily the same amount of caution from each. The driver of a motor vehicle, when ordinarily careful, will be alertly conscious of the fact that in the driver's charge is a machine capable of projecting into serious consequences any negligence of the driver. Thus the driver's caution must be adequate to that responsibility as related to all the surrounding circumstances. A pedestrian, on the other hand, has only such person's own physical body to manage and with which to set in motion a cause of injury. Usually that fact limits the capacity of a pedestrian to cause injury, as compared with that of a vehicle driver. However, in exercising ordinary care, the pedestrian, too, will be alertly conscious of the mechanical power acting on the public roadway, and of the possible serious consequences from any conflict between a pedestrian and such forces. The caution required of the pedestrian is measured by the danger or safety apparent to the pedestrian in the conditions at hand, or that would be apparent to a person of ordinary prudence in the same position.
California Vehicle Code Section 21950 provides:
[(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection [, except as otherwise provided in Vehicle Code Section ______].]
[(b) The provisions of this Section shall not relieve a pedestrian of using due care for his or her own safety. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.]
[(c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.]
California Vehicle Code Section 21954 provides:
[(a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.]
[(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of any vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.]
[An immediate hazard exists whenever a reasonably prudent person in the position of the pedestrian would realize that an approaching vehicle probably would collide with such person if [he] [or] [she] [suddenly left the curb or other place of safety and walked or ran into the path of the approaching vehicle] [did not yield the right of way].]
[An unmarked crosswalk is that unmarked portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles.]
If a pedestrian starts to cross when permitted by law at an intersection where traffic is controlled by an automatic signaling device, and if before the crossing is completed the signal changes, the pedestrian is not required to retrace [his] [or] [her] steps or to stand still, but [he] [or] [she] may proceed as permitted by law. However, the pedestrian is required to exercise ordinary care for [his] [or] [her] own safety.
A roadway is that part of a highway which is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic.
It is the duty of the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle to exercise that amount of care which, under all the circumstances, would not impose upon others an unreasonable risk of harm. That standard of conduct which is reasonable under all the circumstances must, of course, take into consideration the unusual circumstances confronting the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle-that is, the emergency which necessitates immediate action and the duty imposed upon the driver to take reasonable and necessary measures to alleviate the emergency. The question to be asked is, "What would a reasonable, prudent emergency driver do under all of the circumstances, including that of the emergency?"
The California Vehicle Code provides that the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is exempt from and need not observe the provisions of the Vehicle Code relating to __________ under all of the following conditions:
(a) If the vehicle is being driven in response to an emergency call or while engaged in rescue operations or is being used in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or is responding to a fire or fire alarm, [except that fire department vehicles are exempt whether directly responding to [but not returning from] an emergency call or operated from one place to another as rendered desirable or necessary by reason of an emergency call and operated to the scene of the emergency or operated from one fire station to another or to some other location by reason of the emergency call]; and
(b) If the driver of the vehicle sounds a siren as may be reasonably necessary and the vehicle displays a lighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrians.
When the foregoing requirements are met, then it is not negligence as a matter of law for the driver of the authorized emergency vehicle to fail to observe those provisions of the Vehicle Code from which the driver is exempt. This exemption, however, does not relieve the driver of such vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway, nor does it protect the driver from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privileges granted under the exemption.
An arbitrary exercise of the privileges granted means an act performed either with knowledge that serious injury to another will probably result, or with wanton and reckless disregard of the possible consequences.
[It has been established in this case that the vehicle operated by the defendant __________ (driver) was an authorized emergency vehicle.]
In determining whether an emergency vehicle was being driven in response to an emergency call, the test is not whether an emergency in actual fact existed, but rather whether the driver had received a report or a request or was informed of circumstances that would reasonably justify the belief that an emergency existed to which the driver was required to respond in the line of duty.
A physician traveling in response to an emergency call is exempt from the provisions of the Vehicle Code which set forth the prima facie speeds of vehicles, if the vehicle so used by the physician displays proper insignia indicating that the vehicle is owned by a licensed physician. This does not relieve the driver of the vehicle from the duty to travel with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway, or from the duty to obey traffic laws other than those pertaining to speed, nor protect the driver from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privilege.
An arbitrary exercise of the privilege granted means an act performed either with knowledge that serious injury to another will probably result, or with wanton and reckless disregard of the possible consequences.
The California Vehicle Code provides that the operator of a rubbish or garbage truck while actually engaged in the collection of such material within a business or residence district is exempt from and need not observe the provisions of the Vehicle Code relating to __________; provided that the front turn signal lamps at each side of the vehicle and the rear turn signal lamps at each side of the vehicle are being flashed simultaneously.
This exemption does not apply when the vehicle is being driven to or from such work, nor does it relieve the driver of such a vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway or protect the driver from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privilege granted.
Vehicle Code Section 27315 provides, in part, "(e) no person 16 years of age or over shall be a passenger in a private motor vehicle unless that person is restrained by a safety belt."
[A driver of a motor vehicle is a passenger within the meaning of this statute.]
If you find that a seat belt was available to plaintiff and that plaintiff violated Vehicle Code Section 27315, you may consider those facts in determining whether plaintiff exercised ordinary care under the circumstances. Evidence whether a party conformed to the seat belt law is relevant to that issue and ought to be considered, but is not necessarily controlling.