Van Rennes v. Southern Counties Gas Co.

California Court of Appeal Apr 13, 1942 No. Civ. 13398Published

Before: York

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding no prejudicial error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or the denial of the motion for a new trial.

Issues

Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in rejecting certain evidence offered by the defendant?
Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in giving or refusing to give certain jury instructions?
Did the trial court err in its determination regarding its discretion to rule on the motion for a new trial?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whether, instead of the top of the meter box being broken, said box stood up above the soil surrounding it, would not necessarily affect the jury’s ultimate conclusion that said meter box was negligently maintained by appellant”

“For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.”

[229]

YORK, P. J.

This is the second appeal in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by Katie Van Rennes when she fell over a cement meter box maintained by the Southern Counties Gas Company.

At the conclusion of a jury trial on July 26, 1939, a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiffs Van Rennes. Thereafter, the trial court granted defendant gas company’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, from which judgment the plaintiffs appealed. This court on May 19, 1941, reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and directed the trial court to enter judgment pursuant to the verdict which had theretofore been rendered in favor of plaintiffs.

(Van Rennes

Southern Counties Gas Co.,

44 Cal. App. (2d) 880 [113 P. (2d) 238].) Accordingly, judgment on verdict in open court was entered on July 28, 1941,

nunc pro tunc

as of July 26, 1939.

Defendant’s motion for a new trial having been denied on September 5, 1941, it prosecutes this appeal from the aforesaid judgment in favor of plaintiffs, contending that the court committed prejudicial error at the trial of said cause (1) in rejecting certain evidence offered by defendant, and (2) in giving and refusing to give certain instructions. It is also contended that the trial court erred in determining it had no discretion to do other than deny the motion for new trial which was made after filing of the remittitur on the first appeal.

For a statement of facts, the issues drawn by the pleadings and the evidence adduced in support thereof, reference is hereby made in the interest of brevity to the opinion of this court in

Van Rennes

Southern Counties Gas Co., supra.

Apparently in an attempt to establish that respondent Katie Van Rennes, through her former attorney, R. C. Dutton, following the accident had “represented the cause of the accident to be contrary to the contention made by her in her pleadings and proof,” appellant made what it now claims was an offer of proof under the following circumstances:

Van Rennes v. Southern Counties Gas Co.

AI Brief

YORK, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief