Ward v. Litowsky

Opinion

AULT, J.

Barbara Ward appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding her $411.90 for personal injuries and property damage which she claimed to have incurred in an automobile collision. She contends the verdict is inadequate and that various errors and irregularities occurring at the trial contributed to the low award. No reporter’s transcript has been furnished; the appeal is taken on a settled statement pursuant to rule 7 of California Rules of Court.

Appellant’s brief, totaling four and one-half pages, contains neither the topical index nor the table of authorities required by rule 15 of California Rules of Court. It does not properly frame appellate issues, frequently fails to make appro

[439]

priate references to the record, and presents matters beyond the scope of the record. In other instances, it raises the claim of error without supporting authority or argument. On the whole, it is a remarkably inept and inadequate example of appellate advocacy.

Appellant’s first contention of error is framed in the following manner: “Improper instructions to the jury, particularly Vehicle Code sections 21802 and 600.” Nothing further is stated; nowhere is the contention supported by either authority or argument. We are not obliged to comment further. We deem the point raised to be without foundation, requiring no discussion.

(In re Steiner,

134 Cal.App.2d 391, 399 [385 P.2d 972];

Thompson

v.

Keckler,

228 Cal.App.2d 199, 213 [39 Cal.Rptr. 267];

Morris

v.

Associated Securities, Inc.,

232 Cal.App.2d 220, 231 [42 Cal.Rptr. 607].)

Appellant next contends error because of: