Kawecki v. Maguire

SCHOTTKY, J. pro tem. This is an appeal from an order granting a defendant in a personal injury action a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence.

It is a well-established rule of law that when a new trial is granted upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence the order must be affirmed unless it can be said as a matter of law that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support a contrary judgment.

In the recent case of Williams v. Field Transportation Co., 28 Cal.2d 696 [171 P.2d 722], our Supreme Court said, at page 698: “An order granting a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment will not be disturbed upon appeal, unless there be a clear showing of abuse of discretion. ‘All presumptions are in favor of the order and it will be affirmed if it is sustainable on any ground. (Mazzotta v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp., 25 Cal.2d 165, 169 [153 P.2d 338], and eases cited.) The trial court in considering a motion for new trial is not bound by a conflict in the evidence, and has not abused its discretion when there is any evidence which would support a judgment in favor of the moving party. ’ (Ballard v. Pacific Greyhound Lines . . . [28 Cal.2d 357 (170 P.2d 465)].) Even if the evidence is uncontradicted, the trial judge may draw inferences from it contrary to those made by the jury, and it is his duty to resolve such conflicts in determining whether the issues should be retried. Only when, as a matter of law, there is no substantial evidence to support a contrary judgment, may an appellate court reverse an order granting a new trial. (Brooks v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 27 Cal.2d 305 [163 P.2d 689] ; Mazzotta v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp., supra.) ”

In 20 California Jurisprudence, at page 31, it is stated; “Where the evidence is sharply conflicting, or the decision is upon bare questions of fact, an order granting or refusing a new trial will not be disturbed. Nor will such order be disturbed, as a general rule, if there is a substantial conflict in the evidence. In such case an order granting a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the decision is entirely within the legal discretion of the trial court, which will not be deemed to have been abused, unless a decision in favor of the moving party would have no sufficient legal support in the evidence. ’ ’ And in 2 California Jurisprudence, at pages 942-943, it is stated: “Although there may be a substantial conflict in the evidence, the court having heard [82]