Brinck v. Bradbury (1918) · DecisionDepot

Brinck v. Bradbury

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

California Supreme Court Dec 5, 1918 No. L. A. No. 4560.Published

Before: Wilbur

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for damages, finding no prejudicial error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or the refusal to grant a new trial based on the claim of an excessive verdict.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to cross-examination regarding a physician's expert qualifications when those qualifications were stipulated.
Whether the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding the measure of damages for pain and anxiety.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing an instruction regarding alleged malpractice by the plaintiff's physician.
Whether the verdict of $17,354.80 was excessive as a matter of law.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As his qualifications were stipulated to, there was no error in sustaining the objection.”

“There was no evidence or pleading upon which such an instruction could properly be based, and therefore no error in its refusal.”

“we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the verdict of the jury is so disproportionate to the injuries as to justify the interference of this court.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

WILBUR, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered against the defendants Simona Bradbury, incompetent, and Lewis Bradbury, for damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff by the falling of a passenger elevator in a building owned by the defendant, Simona Bradbury. The same accident is referred to in

Campbell

Bradbury, ante,

p. 364, [176 Pac. 685]. Defendants admitted liability and the only issue tried was as to the amount of damages. Upon the trial an objection to a question asked by defendants on the cross-examination of a witness testifying for plaintiff was sustained. Defendants claim that the question was proper for the purpose of testing the qualifications of the physician as an expert. As his qualifications were stipulated to, there was no error in sustaining the objection. Defendants claim that prejudicial error occurred on the trial by reason of the fact that plaintiff’s physician, called by her to testify to her injuries, without consulting or advising plaintiff’s attorney thereof, while on the witness-stand requested the plaintiff to leave the room before he testified as to her injuries. The reason given by him, after plaintiff retired from the room, was that he did not wish to testify in her presence that her injuries were permanent, for fear of the bad effect upon her mind and nervous system of such a declaration by him. Plaintiff in her complaint alleged and verified a statement that she was permanently injured, and it is, therefore, claimed that in this apparent effort of the physician to keep her from the knowledge of his opinion of her injuries he was not acting in good faith, but for the purpose of arousing the sympathy of the jury. The conduct of the witness was entirely consistent with his sworn statement to the effect that plaintiff was permanently injured in her nervous system and added nothing thereto. It is a sufficient answer, however, to defendants’ contention to say that no exception thereto was taken at the time.

Defendants complain of an instruction substantially the same as that given on the measure of damages in the case,

[378]

Storrs

Brinck v. Bradbury

AI Brief

Synopsis

WILBUR, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief