Nahood v. Mutual Motors Inc.

California Court of Appeal Apr 30, 1931 No. Docket No. 702.Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's findings of negligence were sufficiently supported by the evidence, and that a finding of an ultimate fact is not overcome by a potentially unsupported probative fact if other findings independently support the judgment.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's findings of negligence against the defendant.
Whether the defendant could challenge the trial court's finding that a co-defendant was not negligent.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The finding of an ultimate fact cannot be overcome by a finding of probative facts unless it clearly appears that the finding of the ultimate fact is entirely based on probative facts which are destructive of the former”

“The finding that the appellant unlawfully failed to yield the right of way is alone sufficient to sustain the judgment, as this, if true, would constitute negligence per se.”

“The only other point raised by appellant is that the court erred in finding that the defendant Selfrid was not guilty of negligence. This is a matter of which the appellant may not complain.”

BARNARD, P. J.

This is an action for damages on account of injuries received by the plaintiff in a eollison between an automobile driven by defendant Bartle and in which plaintiff was a passenger, and another automobile driven by defendant Selfrid. The collision occurred at a street intersection in Los Angeles on October 21, 1925. The action was tried before the court without a jury and a motion, for nonsuit was granted as to the defendant Mutual Motors Incorporated, a corporation. The court found that the defendant Selfrid was without negligence in the matter and gave judgment against the defendant Bartle, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

The appellant first contends that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the court’s findings as to negligence upon his part. The findings which are attacked are as follows:

“III.

“That at said time and place the defendant and Bartle negligently and carelessly failed to use circumspection and/or caution in and about the operation of his said auto

[721]

mobile, and negligently and carelessly failed to keep the same under his control and negligently and carelessly failed to observe the approach of the said automobile operated by the defendant Selfrid, and negligently, carelessly and unlawfully failed to yield the right-of-way to the said automobile being driven by the defendant, Selfrid, said Bartle being at that time engaged in conversation with plaintiff (C. S. T., Judge), and there being then and there imminent danger of a collision between the said automobiles, the defendant Bartle negligently and carelessly failed to so control or operate or stop his said automobile as to prevent such collision.”

“IV.

“That solely by reason of the negligent, careless and unlawful acts of the defendant Bartle, as aforesaid, and each thereof, the said automobiles were caused to and did collide at said time and place, and the plaintiff was thrown violently against the windshield and other portions of the interior of the said automobile of the defendant Bartle and was thrown therefrom to the ground, and thereby received great bodily injuries as follows:”.

Nahood v. Mutual Motors Inc.

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief