Oakes v. Baker

California Court of Appeal Apr 26, 1948 No. Civ. 7445Published

Before: Adams

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that alleged trial irregularities, including attorney conduct and uncertainty in the verdicts, resulted in prejudice justifying a reversal.

Issues

Whether uncertainty regarding which cause of action a verdict applies to constitutes reversible error for the defendant.
Whether alleged prejudicial statements and questions by plaintiffs' counsel warrant a new trial.
Whether the appellant demonstrated that the jury was prejudiced by inferences of poverty or insurance.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“any uncertainty which might exist as to which of the causes of action the verdicts apply to is a matter which need not worry the defendant but is one to be resolved by the various parties plaintiff, who make no complaint.”

“the grounds for reversal relied upon by appellant are trivial and fail to show prejudice justifying a reversal of the judgment.”

[169]

ADAMS, P. J.

This action was prosecuted by Alvin E. Oakes and Lula E. Oakes, his wife, on their own behalf, and as guardians

ad litem

for their two minor children, Melvin and James, to recover damages sustained by them in an auto-bile collision alleged to have been due to carelessness and negligence on the part of defendant W. E. Baker.

The complaint sets forth six causes of action: (1) Injury to plaintiff’s automobile, (2) personal injury to Alvin E. Oakes, (3) personal injury to his wife, Lula E. Oakes, (4) personal injury to Melvin Oakes, a minor, (5) personal injury to James Oakes, a minor, and (6) moneys expended by the parents for medical expenses on behalf of the minor children, and loss of earnings.

The jury returned five verdicts as follows: In favor of Alvin E. Oakes and Lula E. Oakes in the sum of $2,333.33; in favor of Lula E. Oakes in the sum of $1,000; in favor of Alvin E. Oakes in the sum of $1,000; in favor of Melvin Oakes in the sum of $2,500; and in favor of James Oakes in the sum of $2,500. Judgment was entered accordingly, and a motion for a new trial having been denied, this appeal was taken, the points on appeal, as stated in appellant’s brief, being that matters occurred at the trial which prejudiced the jury, causing it to return the verdicts in the amounts above stated. Appellant specifically sets forth that he does not question liability in the case. Furthermore, it is not contended that the amounts awarded the respective plaintiffs are excessive; but appellant states that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted (1) because there is no way to tell from the verdicts upon which cause of action any one of them is rendered, and (2) because of prejudicial statements made in the opening and closing addresses of plaintiffs’ attorney, and by reason of certain questions asked by plaintiffs’ attorney which it is claimed prejudiced the jury.

As for the first-mentioned ground no authority is cited by appellant; and as we see it, any uncertainty which might exist as to which of the causes of action the verdicts apply to is a matter which need not worry the defendant but is one to be resolved by the various parties plaintiff, who make no complaint. See 64 Corpus Juris, page 1076, section 880, citing

Oakes v. Baker

AI Brief

ADAMS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief