Coats v. Hathorn

Fred R. Coats and Versa Coats, and R.E. Hathorn and Mrs. R.E. Hathorn were husbands and wives. Mr. and Mrs. Coats instituted separate actions in the court below to recover damages from Mr. and Mrs. Hathorn for personal injuries suffered by Mrs. Coats and for actual damages and loss of services of his wife suffered by Mr. Coats, both resulting from an accident in which an automobile driven by R.E. Hathorn struck Mrs. Coats and *Page 259 seriously injured her. The two cases were consolidated and tried together. Separate verdicts and judgments were rendered in favor of each plaintiff against R.E. Hathorn whereby Mrs. Coats was given damages in the sum of $8,000, and Mr. Coats in the sum of $4,000. R.E. Hathorn took separate appeals from these judgments after the denial of his motions for new trials. The appeals are before us on typewritten transcripts and a single record under the method of appeal provided for in section 953a et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The appellant specifies the following errors upon which he bases his claim for a reversal of the judgments: First, that the trial court erred in denying his motions for nonsuits; second, that the trial court erred in denying his motions for instructed verdicts; third, that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdicts; fourth, that the trial court erred in denying his motions for new trials; fifth, that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence a portion of a traffic ordinance of the city of Compton; sixth, that the trial court erred in five instructions which it gave the jury; seventh, that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdicts and judgments in that it shows no negligence on the part of appellant, and contributory negligence as a matter of law on the part of Mrs. Coats.

It is evident that the first four specifications of error (except one question under subdivision four hereinafter considered) are all directed to the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts and judgments and need not be separately considered by us. [1] As was said in Peters v. Southern Pac.Co., 160 Cal. 48 [116 P. 400, 402], "We shall not examine into the correctness of the ruling of the court in denying the motion for a nonsuit. After the order made, the defendant introduced evidence on its own defense. It is well settled that an order denying a motion for a nonsuit will not be disturbed, although the evidence at the close of plaintiff's case was so weak that it might properly have been granted, if, upon trial, the defect is overcome by evidence subsequently introduced. If, upon the conclusion of the whole case, there is evidence upon the material issues warranting the submission of the cause to the jury, the question of whether the court erred in denying a nonsuit becomes *Page 260 of no consequence. (Lowe v. San Francisco Ry. Co., 154 Cal. 573 -576 [98 P. 678] and cases therein cited.)"