Ridenour v. Scarcella

BARNARD, P. J.

The plaintiff appeals from an order granting a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants.

[555]

The plaintiff was injured on July 23, 1949, in a collision between a Ford car, in which she was riding as a guest, and a 10-wheel truck driven by one of the defendants. The accident occurred on a four-lane highway about a quarter of a mile northerly from Huntington Beach. The highway was level and dry, the evening was clear, and the visibility was good. A line of cars was parked solidly on the westerly shoulder, nearest the ocean, except for one parking place. The truck was traveling southerly towards San Diego in the right-hand lane of traffic when a gray car in front of it stopped for the purpose of backing into this parking place. The driver of the truck stopped behind the gray car and sounded his horn. When the gray car did not move, the driver of the truck looked to his rear and seeing no other car coming gave a left signal with his mechanical arm and pulled over into the inside of the two southbound lanes for the purpose of passing the stopped car. When the truck was alongside the stopped car and parallel to it, the car in which the plaintiff was riding, which was proceeding southerly towards San Diego, collided with it. The right front end of the Ford came in contact with the left rear end of the truck, with resulting injuries to the plaintiff.

It is well settled that the granting of a new trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and that such an order will not be reversed unless an abuse of that discretion clearly appears.

(Mazzotta

v.

Los Angeles Ry. Corp.,

25 Cal. 2d 165 [153 P.2d 338].) An order granting a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence will be reversed only where it appears, as a matter of law, that there is no substantial evidence which would support a contrary judgment.

(Ballard

v.

Pacific Greyhound Lines,