Griffith v. Oak Ridge Oil Co. (1923) · DecisionDepot

Griffith v. Oak Ridge Oil Co.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Feb 9, 1923 No. L. A. No. 7301.Published

Before: Myers

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, finding no error in the jury instructions, no misconduct by the jury in reaching their verdict, and that the damages awarded were not excessive.

Issues

Whether the jury instructions regarding proximate cause and speed limits were erroneous or prejudicial.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to exclude loss of wages from damages.
Whether the jury engaged in improper misconduct by using a system of averages to determine the verdict.
Whether the damages awarded were excessive.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The law does not require that negligence of the defendant must be the sole cause of the injury complained of in order to entitle the plaintiff to damages therefor.”

“The appeal is without merit and the judgment is affirmed.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Pat B. Parker, Judge Presiding. • Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

MYERS, J.

This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of a collision at the intersection of two highways, between an automobile driven by the plaintiff and one driven by the defendant Buzzard as employee and agent of the defendant Oak Ridge Oil Company. Defendants’ answer, in addition to denying the allegations of the complaint, pleaded contributory negligence as an affirmative defense. Verdict was for plaintiff and defendants appeal, upon the grounds of error in the instructions, misconduct of jury, and excessive damages.

I It is conceded that the evidence is sufficient to support the implied findings of defendants’ negligence and plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence, and it is also conceded that there was substantial evidence tending to prove contributory negligence, so that error in the instructions upon that issue would be material.

[1]

Defendants complain of the following language in one of the instructions given:

“Negligence on the part of either the plaintiff or defendant is of no consequence in the ease unless you also find that such negligence was a proximate cause of the injury. By proximate cause is meant the efficient cause; the one that necessarily sets the other causes in operation. It is that which is the actual cause of the loss, whether operating directly, or by putting intervening agencies, the operation of which could not be reasonably avoided, in motion, by which the loss is produced, it is the cause to which such loss should be attributed.”

[392]

[2]

It is claimed that this instruction told the jury, in effect, that negligence on the part of either party, to be of consequence in the ease, must be the sole cause of the injury, and defendants assert that such a rule would be correct as applied to the negligence of the defendant and incorrect as applied to contributory negligence of the plaintiff. That is not the law. The law does not require that negligence of the defendant must be the sole cause of the injury complained of in order to entitle the plaintiff to damages therefor. All that is required in either respect is that the negligence in question shall be

Griffith v. Oak Ridge Oil Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

MYERS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief