Court Opinion

ID: 9794100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:59:18.178431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:48.160075
License: Public Domain

MOORE, P. J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment. The opinion of Mr. Justice Wood states that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict in favor of defendant but that the question now to be determined is whether the evidence and its reasonable implications would also have sustained a verdict in favor of plaintiff.
New trials should not be granted solely because the conflicting evidence would have justified a verdict for the losing party. The trial judge must weigh and consider the evidence with the same care as that exercised by him when there is no jury. (Green v. Soule, 145 Cal. 96 [78 Pac. 337].) When the verdict is reasonable in view of the law and the evidence, a new trial is not to be granted solely because the jury might lawfully have decided for the losing party. It is only when the trial judge is persuaded that injustice would triumph if the verdict should be permitted to stand. When after a judicious consideration of the record, he concludes that the “evidence is insufficient to justify or sustain the verdict” as *634in this case, it is his duty to grant a new trial. (Condee v. Gyger, 126 Cal. 546 [59 Pac. 26].) Upon appeal from such order made upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence, to warrant our interference, it must be made to appear that “a verdict in favor of the moving party would not have found sufficient legal support in the evidence given at the trial.” (Wendling Lbr. Go. v. Glenwood Lbr. Co., 153 Cal. 411 [95 Pac. 1029].)