Nahhas v. Pacific Greyhound Lines

[146]

VAN DYKE, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a defense verdict in a personal injury action.

The accident out of which this action arose occurred at the intersection of a county road and a through highway. Appellant Najil Nahhas, driving a truck owned by appellant J oe Nahhas, along the county road, entered the through highway from the west. Respondent Link, driving a Greyhound bus, was approaching the intersection from the south. There was evidence that Najil, apparently without looking for oncoming traffic, entered the highway intersection and was struck by the bus. Sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict is not and could not be challenged.

Appellants first contend that the trial court erred in refusing permission to Joe Nahhas to take the stand and testify. He was not an eyewitness, and it appears could have testified only in respect to the issue of damages, which issue the jury did not reach in its deliberations since the respondents were absolved of liability by the verdict. The following occurred: Although appellants at the trial were represented by counsel, it appears that all was not harmony between Joe and the attorney. At one point Joe informed the court he wished to take the stand and testify. The court told him that he had the right to do so, but that Najil had already testified in appellants' behalf. Joe replied to the court that Najil had not testified in his, Joe’s, behalf. Appellants’ counsel then stated that he did not intend to have J oe testify because he did not witness the accident, because his only interest was in the damage to the truck, which subject had been amply covered, and because the subject matters to which he wished to testify were incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and would be prejudicial to Najil’s case. Thereupon, the trial judge stated that there was nothing more he wished to say about the matter and the trial reconvened. It is not accurate to say, as appellants do, that the trial court prevented Joe from testifying. It is the prerogative of counsel, if not his duty, where he is of the opinion it would be detrimental to the best interests of the case he is presenting to have a certain witness testify, to refuse to call such witness, and even to persuade the clients against their expressed wishes to submit to his decision.