Bonner v. Los Angeles Examiner

California Court of Appeal Nov 13, 1936 No. Civ. 10995Published

Before: Crail

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial in a libel action, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the evidence insufficient to support the verdict and the damages excessive.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial based on insufficiency of evidence and excessive damages.
Whether the appellate court should disturb a trial court's order granting a new trial when there is a reasonable or fairly debatable justification for the order.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The granting of a new trial is a matter resting so largely in the discretion of the trial court that its action will not be disturbed upon appeal except upon a manifest and unmistakable abuse.”

“if there is any appreciable conflict in the evidence, the action of the trial court in granting a new trial is conclusive on the appellate court.”

“an order granting a new trial for excessive damages will not be disturbed if there is a reasonable or fairly debatable justification therefor.”

[460]

CRAIL, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial in an action for damages for libel. The jury awarded $30,000 as compensatory damages and $45,000 as exemplary damages. The order for new trial was granted upon the following grounds: “ (1) Excessive damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice; (2) Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict; (3J That the verdict is against the law; (4) Error in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by the defendant.” Where such a motion is granted for insufficiency of evidence to justify the verdict, an appellate court will not find that there has been an abuse of discretion until it has considered the entire record.

(Gaster

Hinkley,

85 Cal. App. 55, 60 [258 Pac. 988].)

The granting of a new trial is a matter resting so largely in the discretion of the trial court that its action will not be disturbed upon appeal except upon a manifest and unmistakable abuse. On appeal every presumption is in favor of the order and the plaintiff must show affirmatively that the order was erroneous.

(Rosenberg

George A. Moore & Co.,

194 Cal. 392, 396 [229 Pac. 34].) It has been said and quoted over and over again that “it is only in rare instances and upon very. strong grounds that the supreme court will set aside an order granting a new trial”. (2 Cal. Jur. 905, and cases cited.) This rule arises largely from the fact that the order granting a new trial does not finally dispose of the case, but leaves it for retrial upon the merits.

“Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict” is a ground for new trial appealing peculiarly to the discretion of the trial court. The rule which is applicable on an appeal from an order granting a new trial on such ground is upside down to the rule applicable on an appeal from a judgment on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. In the latter situation the verdict of á jury will not be disturbed unless it appears without substantial conflict that there is

Bonner v. Los Angeles Examiner

AI Brief

CRAIL, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief