McNally v. Casner

STROTHER, J.,

pro

tem.

These actions are for damages for injuries received in an automobile collision. Tony

[683]

Silva, cross-defendant and cross-complainant in one of the actions, was driving plaintiff’s car north on the state highway through San Mateo. Plaintiff was sitting by Silva, and Silva’s wife, Nora, was sitting in the rear seat. Defendant, cross-complainant and cross-defendant Harris was driving defendant, cross-complainant and cross-defendant Lucille Casner’s car south on the highway. The cars collided at or near the intersection of Sixteenth Avenue in the city of San Mateo with the highway, at 2 o’clock in the morning.

The plaintiff NcNally brought the action against Lucille Casner and J. Harris, charging them with negligence causing the collision and consequent injuries to- plaintiff. The defendants Casner and Harris filed separate answers, and, by leave of court, cross-complaints against Tony Silva, to which, he answered and thereafter, by leave of court, amended his answers, and filed a cross-complaint against defendants Casner and Harris, to which they answered.

Nora, wife of Tony Silva, was killed in the collision, and thereafter Donald C. Brooks was appointed, and qualified, as administrator of her estate, and instituted an action against Lucille Casner and J. Harris, on behalf of her heirs —her husband and minor child—to recover damages for the death of Nora Silva. Issue was joined in this action, and the two actions were consolidated for trial.

Upon the submission of the case the jury brought in a verdict in favor of plaintiff, assessing his damage at $5,000; brought in a verdict in favor of cross-complainant Tony Silva, and assessed his damages at

$3,000;

and brought in a verdict in favor of Brooks, as administrator, for $10,000. Judgments were entered in accordance with these verdicts, in favor of the respective parties, against defendants and cross-defendants Casner and Harris, from which they have appealed.

The errors in law assigned by appellants are: (1) incorrect rulings on the admissibility of testimony; (2) prejudicial comment by the judge on testimony; (3) erroneous instructions to the jury.