Golceff v. Sugarman

SCHAUER, J.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries the court, at the close of plaintiff’s case, granted defendant’s motion for a nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals from the subsequently entered judgment. Upon consideration of the entire record, and of the authorities governing courts in passing on such motions, we are of the view that plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury, and that the judgment should be reversed.

A trial court must deny a motion for a nonsuit at the close of plaintiff’s case “if there is . . . any substantial evidence,

[153]

which, with the aid of all legitimate inferences favorable to the plaintiff, tends to establish the averments of the complaint, or, in other words, where the plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to support a judgment on the verdict. It should deny a nonsuit even where there is a conflict in the evidence and some evidence tends to sustain the plaintiff’s case, or when the evidence of the plaintiff is such that different conclusions can reasonably be drawn therefrom. If there is any doubt, it is the duty of the court to let the case go to the jury.” (9 Cal.Jur. 558-559.) And as to our duty, “The uniform rule which an appellate court should follow in disposing of an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit is, that the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant, must disregard all inconsistencies and draw only those inferences from the evidence which can reasonably be drawn which are favorable to appellant. [Citations.] ”

(Kirk

v.

Los Angeles Ry. Corp.

(1945), 26 Cal.2d 833, 837-838 [161 P.2d 673, 164 A.L.R. 1]; see, also,

Milana

v.

Credit Discount Co.

(1945), 27 Cal.2d 335, 342-343 [163 P.2d 869, 165 A.L.R. 621];

Mastrangelo

v.

West Side U. H. School Dist.