MEGOWAN v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

MEGOWAN v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES.

ONSTAD v. SAME.*

Civ. 10576, 10577.

Decided: December 13, 1935

Ray L. Chesebro, City Atty., Frederick Von Schrader, Asst. City Atty., and Albert E. Wheatcroft, Deputy City Atty., all of Los Angeles, for appellant. Guy Richards Crump, of Los Angeles, and Morton E. Feiler (Roy W. Colegate, of Los Angeles, of counsel), for respondents.

These are appeals by the defendant city of Los Angeles from two judgments rendered in favor of plaintiffs in cases under section 17141/212 of the Civil Code for damages for personal injuries and property damage received in an automobile accident. The collision occurred between an automobile owned by the city and driven by defendant Meador and the automobile of plaintiff Megowan. Judgment went against both defendants, but only the city has appealed. The cases are similar in nature to the case of Brindamour v. City of Los Angeles (Cal.App.) 52 P.(2d) 1031, this day decided by us, except that in addition to the matters alleged and proved in that case, the plaintiffs in these cases alleged and offered to prove that the automobile of the city which caused the collision was being operated by the city's employee within the scope of his employment.

The appellant says: “The only points raised on appeal are whether the driver of appellant's automobile was engaged at the time of the accident in an act in line with his employment and whether the automobile was being used for a municipal purpose.” These are both questions of fact to be determined by the fact finder and they do not come before this court for review except upon the contention that there is an absence of any substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court with regard thereto. We have read the briefs and the record, and we find that there is some substantial evidence to sustain the findings. It would serve no useful purpose to set out the evidence upon which we rely for this conclusion. Koeberle v. Hotchkiss (Cal. App.) 48 P.(2d) 104.

Judgments affirmed.

CRAIL, Presiding Justice.

We concur: WOOD, J.; McCOMB, Justice pro tem.