Court Opinion

ID: 9559770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:35:24.965791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:42.653493
License: Public Domain

CARTER J.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance because I believe the only issue to be determined—damages— was one of fact, and even though plaintiff’s testimony as to the nature and extent of his injuries was uneontradicted, the jury was not required to believe such testimony and give him an award of damages based thereon. In this connection I reiterate the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Gray v. Brinkerhoff, 41 Cal.2d 180 [258 P.2d 834], where the majority of this court held to the contrary— holding as a matter of law that the trier of fact was required to accept the testimony of plaintiff as to the manner in which an accident happened in which she was injured.
It has always been my view that determination of issues of fact is for the trier of fact and that this court is bound to accept such determination unless it can be said that there is no evidence of any substantial nature to support it. And in cases such as this, where it is claimed that the determination is contrary to the undisputed testimony of a party to the action, we must nevertheless accept such determination for the reason that the trier of fact is not required to believe such testimony.