Clinkscales v. Carver

Supreme Court of California · 1943 · Torts

TortsNegligenceNegligence per seTraffic regulationsnegligencenegligence per sestandard of carestop sign

Facts

Richard Clinkscales was driving west on Oat Canal Road when defendant, driving north on Highline Road, entered the intersection and collided with him, causing Clinkscales's death. A stop-sign had been placed on Highline Road at the intersection in 1936 by a road foreman with the district supervisor's permission, and defendant was familiar with the sign. Defendant did not stop before entering the intersection, though he looked both ways and did not see the other car. Defendant argued that the sign lacked valid legal authorization because the county resolution referred to an ordinance that never became effective due to publication defects.

Issue

In a civil negligence action, may the court treat disregard of an apparently regular stop-sign as negligence as a matter of law even if there were irregularities in the legal authorization for the sign that might defeat criminal liability? Relatedly, were the trial court's instructions on the stop-sign prejudicially erroneous?

Rule

In a civil negligence action, the significance of a statute or traffic regulation is that it may supply a formulated standard of conduct that the court adopts as the civil standard of care. Even if conduct could not be punished criminally because of irregularities in the adoption or authorization of the prohibitory provision, the legislative standard may still govern civil liability if it is an appropriate measure of reasonable conduct; thus, failure to obey an apparently regular stop-sign posted by public authorities may constitute negligence as a matter of law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Fresno County, a stop-sign had stood for years on Willow Bend Road where it meets Cedar Route, a heavily traveled county road. Naomi Vega, who drove that route weekly and knew of the sign, rolled through without stopping and hit Daniel Kerr, who was traveling on Cedar Route; later it was discovered the county had failed to complete a required publication step for the resolution authorizing the sign.

In Daniel's negligence suit, which is the strongest argument for treating Naomi's failure to stop as negligence as a matter of law?

Explanation. The majority rule is that civil liability does not depend on whether the defendant could be criminally prosecuted. A court may adopt a legislatively formulated traffic standard as the civil standard of care if it is an appropriate measure of reasonable conduct. Thus, an apparently regular stop-sign posted by public authorities may define the civil standard even when there were irregularities in authorization that might undermine criminal enforcement.