Siegell v. York

California Court of Appeal Mar 16, 1948 No. Civ. No. 16031Published

Before: White

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the defendants, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the appellate court could not substitute its own inferences for those of the trier of fact where the evidence was in conflict.

Issues

Whether the trial court's finding of no negligence on the part of the defendant was supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in its determination that the defendant's testimony was not inherently improbable.
Whether the legal presumptions of due care and obedience to law were overcome by conflicting direct evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the power of the reviewing courts is limited to a determination of whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the judgment rendered.”

“all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the prevailing party.”

“When the ultimate fact is found from substantial evidence it cannot be said as a matter of law that any presumption will prevail.”

WHITE, J. Plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of her husband, [385]Bennie Siegell, which occurred on July 23, 1945, as the result of a collision between an “Army” jeep operated by the deceased, a member of the armed forces of the United States, and a truck operated by the defendant York and owned by the other defendants.

By her first amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant York was operating the truck as an employee of his codefendants; that he so negligently operated said truck as to cause it to collide with the automobile operated by the deceased, Siegell, resulting in injuries to the latter as the result of which he died.

By their answer, defendants denied the negligence alleged, and as an affirmative defense pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

Upon the issues thus framed, the cause proceeded to trial before the court sitting without a jury, following which the court found that the defendant York was not guilty of negligence, and that the collision was due to the manner in which the deceased operated the vehicle which he was driving. Judgment was accordingly entered against plaintiff and in favor of defendants. From such judgment plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.

The accident occurred about 10 o’clock in the morning on what was known as the “county” road on the Muroc Army Air Base, and running from the main portion of the base in a northerly and southerly direction to a point where it curves about a 110 degree angle to the right and then runs generally in an easterly and westerly direction. The road has a width of 24 to 26 feet at the curve.

It is conceded by all parties hereto that there are but two possible alternatives as to the cause of the collision which is the basis of this action, viz., (a) either the truck crossed over the center of the highway and struck the “jeep,” or (b) the “jeep” swerved or skidded across the center line of the road and into the truck.

Stating the evidence in a light most favorable to respondents, as we are required to do following a judgment in their favor, we find in the record testimony given by the respondent York that as the two vehicles approached the point of impact, he observed the “jeep” about 300 yards north of that point, and that his truck was then 100 yards south thereof, traveling 20 to 25 miles per hour; that from that point up to the collision his truck was at all times on

Siegell v. York

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief