Nelson v. Black

43 Cal.2d 612 (1954) WARREN NELSON, Appellant,

v.

JOHN H. BLACK et al., Respondents.

S. F. No. 19045. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

Oct. 29, 1954. Leonard J. Bloom, James M. French, Kennedy & Bloom and Kenneth W. Larson for Appellant.

Boyd, Taylor & Reynolds and M. K. Taylor for Respondents.

EDMONDS, J.

Warren Nelson sued John Black for damages for injuries assertedly resulting from an automobile accident caused by the negligence of Black. By his answer, Black admitted liability "for any and all damages sustained by the plaintiff proximately resulting from the accident." [613] The appeal is from a judgment for Black entered upon the verdict of a jury.

The accident occurred when Nelson's pick-up truck, while stopped at an intersection, was struck from behind by Black's automobile. According to Nelson, the impact threw his head against the rear of the cab.

Nelson contends that the evidence, as a matter of law, establishes a compensable injury proximately resulting from the accident. He claims that, as the result of the impact, he was partially or totally disabled for some time and incurred medical and hospital expenses amounting to more than $600. But there was no objective manifestation of injury, and the testimony of the medical experts presented by him was based entirely upon his statements to them in regard to headache and other pain which he assertedly suffered.

Nelson received a medical discharge from the United States Navy for "nerves and sleep walking." One physician testified that his condition after the accident was due to "a preexisting quality of the emotional stability of his personality." The record includes evidence tending to prove that he had been at work on days when he claimed to have been unable to do so. [1] From the conflicts in his own testimony and with other evidence in regard to the nature of the medical treatment he received, the extent and duration of his asserted disability, and his physical condition prior to the accident, the jury reasonably could have concluded that he testified falsely concerning those matters. Having so determined, it could have disregarded his entire testimony (Code Civ. Proc., 2061, subd. 3), concluded that he suffered no injury, and found all of his subjective complaints to be false.