Chronister v. Brennan

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of defendants after trial before the court without a jury in an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident plaintiffs appeal.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to defendants (respondents)

(Patten & Davies Lbr. Co.

v.

McConville,

219 Cal. 161, 164 [25 Pac. (2d) 429]), the material facts are these:

Diagram of the Intersection Where the Accident Hereinafter Described Occurred

September 18, 1936, plaintiff Zuma Chronister was driving an automobile in a westerly direction on the northeast side of Leimert Boulevard just east of where it intersects Forty-third Street in the city of Los Angeles at the rate of about twenty-five miles per hour. She proceeded into the intersection and the front, left portion of her car collided with the right, front portion of an automobile being operated by defendant Agnes M. Brennan, who traveling in a northerly direction on Eleventh Avenue had entered the intersection at a

[511]

speed of approximately thirty-five miles per hour. As a result of the collision plaintiff Zuma Chronister received serious personal injuries.

Plaintiffs rely for reversal of the judgment on these propositions :

First: There was no substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding that plaintiff Zuma Chronister was contributorily negligent.

Second: The attitude of the trial judge was so biased and unfair that it amounted to a denial of justice to plaintiffs.

Third: The trial judge committed prejudicial error in refusing to grant plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The first proposition must be answered in the negative. The law is settled in this jurisdiction that where different conclusions from the evidence may reasonably be drawn by different minds the trial court’s finding of fact will not be disturbed on appeal.