TAGLES v. ZELLERBACH PAPER COMPANY (1974)

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

Alphonso TAGLES, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, and Appellant, v. ZELLERBACH PAPER COMPANY, a corporation, and Robert Frank Fischer, Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Respondents.

Civ. 41687.

Decided: January 09, 1974

Magana & Cathcart, Los Angeles, by Charles D. Sneathern, Mar Vista, for appellant. Schell & Delamer, and Martin A. Yester, Los Angeles, for respondents.

Tagles sued Zellerbach Paper Company for personal injuries sustained in a collision with Zellerbach's truck. The jury found in favor of Tagles, but thereafter the trial court granted Zellerbach a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to justify the verdict. On appeal Tagles contends the order for a new trial did not specify its grounds and reasons as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 657.¹

The court's minute order read: “Defendant's motion for new trial is granted on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, for the reason that the totality of the evidence clearly establishes by a preponderance thereof that plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of his injury; particularly the testimony of Robert Frank Fischer and Sharon K. Wilson concerning the activity of the plaintiff prior to impact, and that of Paul Fice concerning his investigation and physical findings.”

An order which grants a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to justify the verdict must briefly recite the respects in which the court finds the evidence legally inadequate and briefly identify those portions of the record that have convinced the court the jury should have reached a different verdict. (Mercer v. Perez, 68 Cal.2d 104, 116, 65 Cal.Rptr. 315, 436 P.2d 315; Stevens v. Parke, Davis Co., 9 Cal.3d 51, 60, 107 Cal.Rptr. 45, 507 P.2d 653.) Mere restatement of ultimate fact is insufficient, but on the other hand the court is not required to cite page and line of the record. (Scala v. Jerry Witt & Sons, Inc., 3 Cal.3d 359, 369-370, 90 Cal.Rptr. 592, 475 P.2d 864.) Each order must be considered in the light of the circumstances of the particular case, and with reference to the ultimate purposes of the specification requirement: to “encourag[e] careful deliberation by the trial court before ruling on a motion for new trial, and [[to] mak[e] a record sufficiently precise to permit meaningful appellate review.” (Miller v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist., 8 Cal.3d 689, 697, 106 Cal.Rptr. 1, 6, 505 P.2d 193, 198.)

We conclude that the challenged order granting a new trial met the specification requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 657. The court first stated the legal ground for its ruling—that the evidence established plaintiff Tagles' own negligence as a proximate cause of his injury. The court then specified the particular evidence in the record that compelled this conclusion. Clearly, the court carefully deliberated before making its ruling. Equally clearly, the record has been made sufficiently precise to permit meaningful appellate review, for if the full trial record were before us, we could turn to the specified evidence to determine whether or not the trial court's order was justified. The order for a new trial eliminated all guesswork as to its grounds and reasons, and elaboration beyond this point was not required.

The order for a new trial is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.  Code of Civil Procedure section 657 provides in pertinent part: “When a new trial is granted, on all or part of the issues, the court shall specify the ground or grounds upon which it is granted and the court's reason or reasons granting the new trial upon each ground stated.”

FLEMING, Acting Presiding Justice.

COMPTON and BEACH, JJ., concur.