REDFEARN
v.
MCKELVEY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this small claims court case, the court ruled against the plaintiff's negligence claim but awarded judgment to the defendant on a counterclaim for $215.94 plus costs. The court found that the plaintiff failed to yield the right of way in a private parking lot and thus breached the standard duty of care expected of drivers.
The defendant was not liable on the plaintiff's claim because the plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof. The defendant-counterplaintiff was awarded judgment because the plaintiff-counterdefendant was negligent in failing to yield the right of way, which was the sole proximate cause of the collision. The standard of care expected of drivers on public roads applies equally to drivers in private parking lots.
“The evidence is legally insufficient to establish liability under the material allegations of plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff failed to carry his legal burden of proof, the allegations of his claim have not been sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Establishes why plaintiff's claim was rejected
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA collision occurred in Shell's customer parking lot between vehicles operated by the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty To Yield Right-Of-Way cases and more on FLexlaw
Judgment is rendered for the defendant on plaintiff’s claim. Judgment is rendered for the defendant-counterplaintiff against plantiff-counterdefendant for $215.94, and $7.50 costs. The parties stipulated as to the amount of damages.
The evidence is legally insufficient to establish liability under the material allegations of plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff failed to carry his legal burden of proof, the allegations of his claim have not been sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.
The evidence is legally sufficient to establish liability under the material allegations of defendant’s counterclaim. The evidence shows that the counterdefendant failed to yield the right of way and struck the counterplaintiff’s vehicle while it was being driven on a proper driving lane of Shell’s customer parking lot. The weight of the credible evidence compels a finding that the counterdefendant failed to exercise the degree of driving care required of a safe and prudent driver under the factual circumstances herein.
*25The abovementioned findings of fact have been made on the basis of a well established rule of the road applicable to drivers of vehicles on public streets or highways.
It has always been customary for a driver of a vehicle approaching an unmarked intersection of a public street to yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle approaching such intersection on the right. This is similar to the universal custom of operating vehicles on the right side of the road whether they are traveling on a public road or a private road. See Sills v. Forbes, 38 Cal. App. 2d 219, 91 P. 2d 246.
The duty of a driver to keep on the right side of the road has been so established as a custom as to have the same effect as if it were the law. See Brown v. Yocum, 113 Cal. App. 621, 298 P. 845. The custom itself has established a standard of due or reasonable care to which all drivers are required to conform.
The same standard of driving care should be applicable to drivers of vehicles on a privately owned supermarket customer parking area. See Altamore v. Hunt, 224 P. 2d 904, which is analogous in principle and controlling here. To the same effect: Kern v. Autman, 177 A. 2d 525.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and principles of law, the counterdefendant was negligent, and his negligence was the sole proximate cause of the resulting collision and damages sustained by the counterplaintiff.