Metzler v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

YORK, J.

Plaintiff and appellant brought this action to recover for personal injuries sustained by her as the result

[657]

of alleged negligence of the defendants. Defendants denied the negligence and in their answers affirmatively alleged contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. Upon trial of the issues thus presented, the court, sitting without a jury, rendered judgment in favor of defendants.

Appellant now maintains that the findings made by the court are not responsive to the issues presented by the pleadings, that they are uncertain, vague, unintelligible, not precise or exact, and do not support the judgment, and urges that the court should have found upon the

degree

of defendants’ negligence, and, further, that the findings show defendants guilty of gross negligence and that contributory negligence is not a defense thereto.

The court found that the defendant corporation maintained a station at the place of the accident, that the relation of carrier and passenger existed at the time of the accident and that defendant Chase negligently operated the train at a high rate of speed, but that plaintiff’s contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

Upon a thorough examination of the record before us, which came up on a judgment-roll only, we are of the opinion that the findings are responsive to the issues presented by the pleadings and are sufficient to support the judgment.

It was a question for the trial court to determine from the evidence offered at the trial, whether the negligence of defendants or the contributory negligence of plaintiff was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Having decided that plaintiff’s negligence was 'the proximate cause of the accident, it was not incumbent upon the court to find as to the degree of defendants’ negligence.

In the case of

Sego

v.

Southern Pac. Co.,