WEAVER v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1935)

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

WEAVER v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.

Civ. 10137.

Decided: June 25, 1935

Ray L. Chesebro, City Atty., Frederick Von Schrader, Asst. City Atty., and Albert E. Wheatcroft, Deputy City Atty., all of Los Angeles, for appellants. Clyde C. Triplett and Joseph Dickson, both of Los Angeles, for respondent.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Plaintiff, a cripple, was a pedestrian. The car which struck her was owned by defendant city and was driven by defendant Stone. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. Subsequent to the entry of the judgment, plaintiff moved for a new trial. The court granted said motion on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. It is from said order that this appeal is prosecuted.

“The sufficiency of the evidence being a question of fact which the trial court is authorized to review, the exercise of its discretion is not error of law which may be disturbed upon appeal except in extreme cases, as where an abuse of discretion appears. * * *” See cases cited in 20 Cal. Jur. 114. There was a substantial conflict in the evidence both as to the negligence of the defendant and as to the negligence of the plaintiff. We cannot say as a matter of law either that the defendant was free from negligence or that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence which contributed to her injuries.

Order affirmed.

CRAIL, Justice.

I concur: STEPHENS, P. J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network