Case ID: cal-app-2d_20/html/0220-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COUBT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civ. No. 10205.
    First Appellate District, Division One.
    April 6, 1937.]
    CATHERINE M. CAULFIELD, Appellant, v. MARKET STREET RAILWAY COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Respondents.
    Vincent W. Hallman, F. Bruce McMullen, William F. Herron, John K. Hagopian and Carey Van Fleet for Appellant.
    William M. Abbott, Walter IT. Linforth and William M. Cannon for Respondents.
   THE COUBT.

by the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries from a judgment entered in her favor in the sum of $400.

The trial court denied her motion for a new trial, one of the grounds of which was the inadequacy of the award.

She alleged that she fell from a moving street car which was negligently operated by defendant company, and suffered certain physical injuries.

There was a conflict in the testimony as to the nature and extent of her injuries; and from that adduced by the defendant the jury was justified in finding that they were not serious or permanent.

It was testified that she lost time from her employment and incurred liability for hospital care and the services of physicians and nurses, the aggregate of the amounts claimed exceeding the judgment. While amounts agreed to be paid for services are some evidence of their reasonable value (Dewhirst v. Leopold, 194 Cal. 424 [229 Pac. 30]; Davis v. Fyfe, 107 Cal. App. 281 [290 Pac. 468]), this is not conclusive (Zimmer v. Kilborn, 165 Cal. 523 [132 Pac. 1026, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 368]), and the same rule applies as to expert opinion as to value. (10 Cal. Jur., Evidence, sec. 125, p. 842; Nichols Applied Evidence, vol. 5, p. 4584.) Nor was the jury compelled to conclude from plaintiff’s testimony as to the time lost from her employment that this was the necessary result of her injuries. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2061.)

In view of all the testimony we cannot say that the award was inadequate. Nor, as urged by the defendants, does it follow from the order denying the motion for a new trial that the trial court was of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to prove negligence. (Dreyer v. Cyriacks, 112 Cal. App. 279 [297 Pac. 35]; Muench, v. Gerske, 139 Cal. App. 438 [34 Pac. (2d) 198].) There was sufficient evidence on the latter issue to go to the jury, and their conclusion is fairly supported.

The judgment is affirmed.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on May 6, 1937, and an application by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on May 27,1937.