Boyce v. California Stage Co.
Before: Sanderson
Synopsis
Damages for Personal Injuries. — In an action against a stage company to recover damages for personal injuries occasioned by the overturn of the coach, it is only necessary for the plaintiff to prove the overturn and the injuries he sustained. The presumption of law is, that the overturn occurred through the negligence of the defendant, and the burden of proving that there has been no negligence is cast on the defendant. In order to rebut the presumption of negligence, the defendant must show that the overturn was the result of inevitable casualty, or of some cause which human care and foresight could not prevent.
Instructions to a Jury.—Counsel may propose instructions to the Court, but the Court is not compelled to give or refuse them as asked. If in the opinion of the Judge the proposed instructions are defective in form of expression, or erroneous in law, he may modify them in either particular and give them to the jury in their modified form, or he may refuse them altogether.
Variance between Allegations and Proof.—If in the progress of a trial evidence is offered by the plaintiff at variance with the allegations of the complaint, and the counsel for the defense does not object to it at the time, nor move to strike it out upon the ground of variance, the error is waived, and the Court may instruct the jury in relation to the whole field of inquiry covered by the evidence.
Error.—A judgment will not be reversed because an error has intervened in the course of a trial, which does not prejudice the defendant’s case.
Chance Verdict.—A verdict which is arrived at by each one of the jurymen marking such sum as he thinks proper, and then adding the several sums together and dividing the totahby twelve, and making the quotient the verdict, is not a chance verdict within the meaning of the second subdivision of section one hundred and ninety-three of the Practice Act.
Impeachment of Verdict of a Jury.—The verdict of a jury cannot be impeached by the affidavits of the jurors, except when the verdict is arrived at by a resort to the determination of chance.
Rule of Damages.—In all cases where there is no rule of law regulating the assessment of damages, and the amount does not depend on computation, the judgment of the jury, and not the opinion of the Court, is to govern, unless the damages are ■ so excessive as to warrant the belief that the jury must have been influenced by partiality or prejudice.
Opinion — Sanderson
By the Court, Sanderson, C. J. This action was brought to recover damages on account of personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the [466]negligent and careless upsetting of the defendant’s stage coach upon which he was a passenger. The damages were laid in the complaint at fifty thousand dollars, and the jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of sixteen thousand and five hundred dollars. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied. The appeal is from the judgment and order. .
The facts as gathered from the testimony contained in the record are substantially as follows: On the 19th of October, 1861, the respondent paid the usual fare and took passage in one of defendant’s coaches, to be conveyed from Downieville, in Sierra County, to Marysville, in Yuba County. He took a seat on the outside with the driver. The coach started soon after midnight. The moon was near its full, and the night clear and bright. About two o’clock in the morning, the coach was slowly ascending Goodyear’s Bar hill, and was about a mile from the summit. At that point the road curves around a very steep, rocky ravine. The roadway was constructed by digging into the bank on the upper or right, hand side, and building a rock crib about eleven feet in height on the lower side and filling in with rock and earth. A log about eighteen inches in diameter was placed on the edge of the rock crib or wall, and was a little higher than the road. The road was wide enough for the convenient passage of a coach,, mule team or any kind of ordinary vehicle, and the track for the lower wheel was about two feet from the edge of the wall or crib.
As the coach approached this curve, it turned out from the usual track at a small angle, and gradually approached the edge of the wall or crib instead of following around the curve, and tracked along the log nearly its whole length, when, having passed beyond the highest point of its circumference, one of the wheels slipped over the outer side of the log, and the coach, horses and passengers were precipitated down the ravine. The respondent was very severely and dangerously injured, having his lower jaw broken in three places, the upper jaw separated from its bony attachment, his right [467]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)