Boyson v. Porter

California Court of Appeal Dec 2, 1935 No. Civ. 9721Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of negligence and that the trial court properly denied the defendants' motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court further determined that the plaintiff was not a guest and that the jury selection process, while irregular, did not warrant reversal absent evidence of juror disqualification.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of negligence against the defendants.
Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Whether the trial court erred in denying motions for nonsuit, directed verdict, and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Whether the plaintiff was a guest under the law, requiring a showing of willful misconduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“When reasonable minds can draw different conclusions from the facts, negligence is a question of fact for the jury.”

“If the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, as we believe it was, it follows that the motions for nonsuit, directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were properly denied.”

“Respondent was not a guest.”

ROTH, J.,

pro tem.

Respondent was on June 10, 1933, the day of the accident hereinafter set out, and had been for some time prior thereto, employed by the committee seeking to elect John C. Porter, mayor of Los Angeles. The evidence discloses that on the day mentioned, the Citizen Print Shop, Inc., was good “enough to let us (the committee) have the use of their truck” and its driver, one Emery. Plaintiff’s

[433]

action for damages was commenced against the members of the committee, Citizen Print Shop, Inc., and Emery. Motions for directed verdicts were granted as to all named defendants except Citizen Print Shop, Inc., and Emery, against which two last-named defendants, hereinafter referred to as appellants, the jury before which the case was tried brought in a verdict of $2,500.

Emery drove the truck mentioned to various places, in accordance with directions of plaintiff. On the particular ride in question, a capacity load of furniture was being transported to a certain church building and Emery and another person were riding in the cab. Plaintiff was sitting in a chair facing forward. The chair rested on the floor of the truck near the rear, which was open, there being no end gate, but close enough to the side to enable plaintiff to hold onto the “stake body” built over the floor of the truck along its sides. The floor of the truck was “galvanized sheet iron” and was “perfectly smooth”. It further appeared that the driver of the truck by looking through the back of the cab could see plaintiff. It also appears that there was room in the cab for plaintiff, but that on the trip in question he was riding in the position mentioned, holding to the side of the truck, steadying himself so, as he put it, he “wouldn’t fall out”. With plaintiff riding in this position, the truck came to a standstill in front of the church building, and while the truck was stopped, although the motor was still running, plaintiff relaxed his hold, but his arm still “lay on the side of the truck” and with the other arm he had hold of the chair in which he was sitting. When plaintiff was in this position, the truck lurched forward with a jerk, throwing plaintiff to the street, as a consequence of which the plaintiff sustained fractures of the spine, particularly to the transverse processes of the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae, and an injury to the back of his head. As summarized in the bill of exceptions, plaintiff described the accident as follows:

Boyson v. Porter

AI Brief

ROTH, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief