Court Opinion

ID: 9551392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:52:38.067262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:41.752734
License: Public Domain

PETERS, P. J.
I concur.
I agree that the evidence supports the implied finding of the jury that Homey at the time of the accident was the agent of appellant, acting within the course and scope of his employment, and that the damages are not excessive as a matter of law. I therefore concur with everything said in the majority *759opinion. Bnt there is an additional reason why appellant is in no legal position to now contend that Homey was not acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident.
The transcript shows that at no time during the trial did appellant contend that Homey was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The only testimony on this issue was given by Homey, who was called under section 2055 of the Code of Civil Procedure by respondent. When counsel for appellant examined Homey he merely asked him to restate his testimony about what he was doing at the time of the accident. Appellant produced no contrary evidence at all. Of course, the burden on this issue was on respondent and not on appellant, but it is quite apparent that, at the trial, appellant made no serious contention on this issue. With the record in this condition, counsel for appellant, in his argument to the jury, stated that he was indifferent on this issue. After telling the jury that it had heard Homey testify as to his duties, counsel for appellant stated: “However, his Honor will give you an instruction covering that, and I am not going to belabor the implied construction of the facts. If you believe that Mr. Homey was acting within the course and scope of his employment, that is all right with us. You are determining that factor, and your determination of it will be satisfactory to us. I am not urging you to find one way or the other. After you have heard the instructions, you should be able to determine if you believe he was not acting as our agent and in the course of the scope of his employment—if you do so determine and believe, then of course your verdict should be returned in our favor. But as I say, that is not a matter I am stressing to you. Whatever you find is all right with us.”
This, in my opinion, amounted to either a waiver of the point, or amounted to invited error. It likewise is an attempt to change the theory of the case on appeal. Counsel should not be permitted to take a position before the jury by stating that he does not cafe about how they find on a particular issue, thus implying that he is not urging the point, and then, after he has secured whatever benefit he believed he would get by taking that position, challenge the jury’s finding as being unsupported. For these reasons, in my opinion, appellant is in no legal position to urge the point under consideration.