Court Opinion

ID: 9737364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:23:06.316267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:58.400849
License: Public Domain

DRAPER, J.
I dissent.
This case presents only a conflict of evidence. It is the province of the trial court alone to resolve conflicts in the testimony and to draw reasonable inferences from the testimony which is accepted.
*268The majority opinion correctly summarizes plaintiff’s testimony that students were required to walk in the corridor, but were permitted to run when they reached the black-topped recreation area. That opinion, however, overlooks the flatly contrary testimony of the teacher, who said that children were not allowed to run in that area when they went to the physical education period. The trial court obviously resolved this conflict by accepting the teacher’s testimony.
It is a completely reasonable inference that if the teacher had been present, the running would not have occurred (see Forgnone v. Salvador U. E. School Dist., 41 Cal.App.2d 423, 425 [106 P.2d 932]). It was equally reasonable for the trial court to infer, from the entire record that the running of the pupils was a major contributing cause of plaintiff’s injury. The fact that this court might draw contrary inferences seems to me immaterial in view of the established limitations upon the appellate function.
It is not necessary to prove that the very injury which occurred was foreseeable (Taylor v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 17 Cal.2d 594, 600 [110 P.2d 1044]). Even the wilful act of a fellow student (and the record here does not compel the conclusion that the “pushing” of plaintiff was wilful or deliberate, rather than accidental), is not of itself such an intervening cause as to relieve a school district of liability (Charonnat v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 56 Cal.App.2d 840 [133 P.2d 643] ; Forgnone v. Salvador U. E. School Dist., supra, 41 Cal.App.2d 423; Ziegler v. Santa Cruz City High Sch. Dist., 168 Cal.App.2d 277 [335 P.2d 709]). The issues of negligence and proximate cause are questions of fact (Tymkowicz v. San Jose etc. School Dist., 151 Cal.App.2d 517, 521 [312 P.2d 388]). Undoubtedly the record here would support findings in favor of defendant on these issues. But the trial court, in the exercise of the fact-finding function which is vested in it, and not in this court, has found the other way. There is substantial evidence to support its findings.
I would affirm the judgment.
Respondents' petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 15, 1961. Peters, J., and Dooling, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.