Potter v. Day
Filed 5/23/06 Potter v. Day CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| PHYLLIS POTTER et al., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PATRICIA ANN DAY, Defendant and Appellant. | A109981 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG03107354) |
After a jury reached a verdict in favor of defendant Patricia Ann Day in this personal injury action, the trial court granted plaintiff Phyllis Potter's motion for a new trial, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that defendant had not been negligent. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant was driving her car northbound along College Avenue in Berkeley on January 19, 2003, approaching the corner of College Avenue and Webster Street around dusk. There was a marked crosswalk at that point, and the sidewalk extended several feet into the crosswalk to accommodate a wheelchair access ramp. All the parking spaces on the street were occupied. Shortly before reaching the intersection, defendant saw plaintiff crossing the street in the crosswalk. She immediately applied the brakes, but was unable to stop in time, and her car struck plaintiff.[1] Her car came to a stop in the crosswalk. Defendant had not noticed anyone else in the crosswalk.
Defendant did not recall telling anyone at the scene that the accident was her fault, although she remembered telling a witness, Wayne Katsumata, that she was sorry the accident had occurred. Because of her background in the law, she doubted that she would have assumed liability.[2]
Plaintiff testified that after leaving her car in a parking lot on the east side of College Avenue, she walked to the crosswalk, paused at the curb, and looked to her left. She did not see defendant's car coming from that direction, nor anything else that could have been a threat. However, she testified that she may have seen â€
