Larson v. Blue & White Cab Co.

NOURSE, P. J.

Action for personal injuries. Defendants have appealed, upon a bill of exceptions, from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $3,000.

Plaintiff was a passenger for hire in a certain taxicab operated by defendant David Page Cutten. It was stipulated between the parties that defendant Lloyd J. Long was the owner of the taxicab, that at the time of the accident the taxicab was being operated as a common carrier by defendant David Page Cutten as the employee and agent of defendant Long, and that at .the time and place of the accident, defendant Cutten was acting within the scope of his employment.

At the time of the" accident in question, plaintiff was a tourist from Michigan visiting in San Francisco. Defendants, therefore, made a demand for security for costs and requested a stay of proceedings until such security as required by section 1030' of the Code of Civil Procedure was supplied. Plaintiff took the stand and was examined by the court concerning his residence. Plaintiff testified that he was

[578]

living in Sacramento, that he was now a resident of California, and that he intends to make California his residence. At the close of this testimony the court stated, “I am satisfied with the testimony.” Attorney for defendants stated, “Very well, Your Honor.” Thereupon the case proceeded to trial. Defendants now contend that the court erroneously refused to permit cross-examination of plaintiff concerning his place of residence. There appears to be no merit in defendants’ contention, for the record shows that defendants expressed their satisfaction with the testimony of plaintiff, and made no demand that they be allowed to cross-examine plaintiff. Likewise, defendants do not state in what manner they were prejudiced by this conduct of the trial court, nor does any prejudice appear from the record.

At the close of the evidence, the court stated that it did not desire to hear any argument on the question of liability ; that two hours hence counsel should be prepared with cases on the question of damages alone; that it had concluded plaintiff was entitled to judgment against defendants. Defendants assign as error the refusal of the court to hear argument on the question of liability. _ When the cause is tried by the court sitting without a jury, counsel has no absolute right to argument. The question of whether argument shall be allowed, or if allowed, restricted, is one within the discretion of the trial court.