Griffin v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.
Before: Allen
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. Waldo M. York, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Bicknell, Gibson, Trask, Dunn & Crutcher, and Norman S. Sterry, for Appellant.
ALLEN, J.
This is an action to recover damages by a passenger on one of defendant’s cars, based on the claim of negligence in the operation of a car upon which plaintiff was being carried. Trial was by the court, with findings and judgment against defendant, from which and an order denying a new trial defendant appeals.
The court finds that on September 26, 1902, plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant’s cars which were being operated on Raymond Avenue within the city of Pasadena; that it was the duty of defendant to stop such ear at the crossing of Union Street with Raymond Avenue in said city;
[680]
that when approaching snch street-crossing plaintiff notified defendant’s servants to stop thereat that the plaintiff might alight from snch car; that the speed of the car was slackened as if to stop, and plaintiff arose from his seat and proceeded to the rear door of the ear, which was open, and stood there waiting for the car to come to a full stop; that while standing the defendant’s servants carelessly and negligently caused the electric power to be turned on suddenly, thereby giving the car a sudden jerk, by reason of which plaintiff was thrown out of the door of the car and violently to the ground, and was injured and wounded so that he became sick, sore, and disabled, and for a long time was unable to perform his usual work; that the amount which will compensate him for the detriment proximately caused by such injury is one thousand dollars. The court further found that plaintiff was guilty of no contributory negligence, and rendered judgment in plaintiff’s favor for one thousand dollars.
Defendant first contends that the judgment is unsupported by the findings; that the finding that one thousand dollars will compensate plaintiff for the detriment caused is not the equivalent of a finding that- he was damaged to the extent of one- thousand dollars, upon the theory that if he were damaged in a less sum the finding would still be true. Findings of a trial court are to receive such construction as will uphold rather than defeat its judgment, and whenever from the facts found by it other facts may be inferred which will support the judgment, such inference will be deemed to have been made by the trial court, and upon appeal from that judgment, this court will not draw from those facts any inference of fact contrary to that which may have been drawn by the trial judge for the purpose of rendering his judgment.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)