Rohner v. Cross

California Court of Appeal Mar 17, 1932 No. Docket No. 8167.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

Issues

Whether the damages awarded by the jury were excessive as a matter of law.
Whether the trial court erred in the admission of expert testimony regarding the plaintiff's medical history.
Whether the trial court's jury instructions regarding negligence, ordinary care, and future pain and suffering were proper.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The jury was thus confronted with a conflict of evidence and it cannot be said that there is not sufficient evidence to support the verdict.”

“The reviewing court may interfere only in cases where the excess appears as a matter of law, or where the recovery is so grossly disproportionate to any compensation reasonably warranted by the facts as to shock the sense of justice”

NOURSE, P. J.

Plaintiffs sued for damages for personal injuries to Louise Rohner. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs in the sum of $5,416 and the defendants appeal upon typewritten transcripts.

The injuries resulted from a collision of an automobile driven by Louise Rohner with one driven by defendant Helen Cross at a street intersection in the city of Palo Alto. The Rohner car was struck on the left rear wheel and spun around twice; the driver was thrown against the steering-wheel and suffered minor bruises of the body. Medical examination later disclosed a sacro-iliac sprain, a retroversion of the uterus, and an injury to the tendon of the left knee. The patient complained of pain in the muscles of the neck, back and right leg, but this was relieved in the course of two or three days.

The appellants urge that the damages awarded are excessive and that the trial court erred in the admission of certain evidence. Complaint is also made of certain instructions. These points do not require extensive treatment—the negligence of defendant Helen Cross was shown by evidence which is not substantially controverted— the want of contributory negligence on the part of Mrs. Rohner is not open to controversy. Hence it is sufficient to say as to these points that the instruction covering the presumption of ordinary care on her part was proper,

[669]

there being no evidence to the contrary

(Tanaka

Granelli,

107 Cal. App. 547, 549 [290 Pac. 515]); that the instruction relating to the duty of one operating a motor vehicle was correct in the abstract, applied to both parties, and was not prejudicial; that the instruction relating to physical pain or mental suffering in the future was properly given under respondents’ theory of their case and related to an issue upon which some evidence had been offered; and that no prejudicial error arose from the ruling permitting one of the expert witnesses to repeat some of the history of Mrs. Rohner’s case. This evidence was admissible as a basis for the medical opinion the doctor was about to give.

Rohner v. Cross

AI Brief

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

L. R. A. (N. S.) 687, 113 Pac. 366];

AI Brief