Myers v. Carter

KINGSLEY, J. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants in an action for personal injuries. While plaintiff, a man of limited education, was a passenger in a taxicab owned by defendant Yellow Cab Company and driven by defendant Hanna, the cab was involved in a collision with an automobile driven by defendant Carter. In addition to other defenses, defendants duly pleaded a release executed by plaintiff. Pursuant to section 597 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the issue of the validity of the release was tried first and, by stipulation, without a jury. The trial court made findings in favor of the defendants and entered judgment in their favor. This appeal followed.

[240]The collision occurred at about 1:30 in the morning of Saturday, March 9, 1957. Plaintiff was taken to a hospital where sutures were applied to a cut on his head and he was released. On Monday, March 11, 1957, two days after the accident and before plaintiff had returned to the hospital for further treatment, he was visited at his place of employment by James M. McCarthy, a claims adjuster for the defendant cab company. After a discussion for a period of thirty to forty minutes, plaintiff agreed to accept the sum of $150 in settlement of his claims and executed a release.

I

As pleaded, and as offered in evidence, the release ran in favor of both the cab company and defendant Carter.1 Plaintiff testified at the trial that, when executed by him, the release did not name Carter and that, in fact, a prime consideration for his acceptance of the offered sum was the representation by the adjuster that plaintiff had a good cause of action against Carter and could sue him. The trial court decided this issue in favor of defendants.

Plaintiff was the sole witness to testify in person as to the conversation between him and the adjuster or as to the events leading up to and surrounding the execution of the release. McCarthy was deceased at the time of the trial and his deposition was offered by defendants in contradiction of plaintiff’s testimony. McCarthy denied making any representations to plaintiff as to his rights against Carter and insisted that the release, when executed, contained Carter’s name as a party being released from liability. The trial judge, at the close of the case, stated he considered McCarthy's deposition to be credible and would accept its version insofar as it was inconsistent with the oral testimony of plaintiff. It is well settled that, while a trial court may not arbitrarily reject testimony, still it is free to reject the testimony of a witness, even if uncontradicted, if there is any rational ground for so doing. (Huth v. Katz (1947) 30 Cal.2d 605 [184 P.2d 521] ; Blank v. Coffin (1942) 20 Cal.2d 457, 461 [126 P.2d 868] ; Giannini v. Bank of America (1951) 101 Cal.App.2d 805 [226 P.2d 712].) Here, not only was the testimony of