In Kuist v. Curran (1953) 116 Cal. App. 2d 404, the appellant saw a pedestrian in the street, but continued to drive directly toward her, claiming that the pedestrian's change of position in the street by taking a step was a sudden peril. ( Id. at p. 410.) The court rejected the appellant's theory after construing it as a contention that, in effect, the sudden peril was the pedestrian's failure to get out of the way. (Ibid.)