Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
HELLMAN v. LOS ANGELES RY. CORPORATION.
Petition for rehearing denied. Petitioner calls our attention to the closing sentence of instruction VI, and of our failure to comment on same. It is not the duty of an appellate court to discover errors not called to its attention.
After stating certain conditions which, if found to exist, justified a verdict for plaintiff, the instruction concludes: “Then your verdict should be for the plaintiff, unless you shall further find that the plaintiff was herself guilty of negligence, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained.” (Italics ours.) Appellant urges that such instruction amounts to a charge that, unless any such negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, it would not defeat a recovery by plaintiff. The case of Straten v. Spencer, 52 Cal. App. 98, 197 P. 540, is cited as authority for the contention urged. If such instruction stood alone, we would unhesitatingly declare it to be prejudicially erroneous. A similar defect existed in an instruction complained of in the case of Squier v. Davis Standard Bread Co., 181 Cal. 533, on page 537, 185 P. 391, 392, concerning which the court says: “The sentence containing the objectionable words is immediately preceded by a sentence requiring the jury to determine whether plaintiff's negligence, if any, was ‘a proximate cause’ of the injuries received by him. Moreover, the jury was elsewhere fully and correctly instructed on the law of contributory negligence. Considering the instructions as a whole, we consider the possibility that the jury could have been misled by the error complained of so remote as to be altogether unworthy of serious consideration.” In the present case the jury was fully instructed as to contributory negligence and was told as a part of such instruction that “it matters not how slightly or in what degree it contributes, provided it does contribute directly or proximately to the injuries sustained.” The same doctrine is laid down in several other instructions given by the court, and, considering all the instructions together, we cannot see how the jury could possibly have been misled by the defect in the instruction of which complaint is now for the first time made.
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Civ. 8074.
Decided: January 06, 1934
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)