Meiner

The majority has decided that the order can be sustained on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict but not on any of the other grounds stated in the motion. I agree with respect to the other grounds, but respectfully dissent as to the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. In my opinion the reasons given in support of that ground were inadequate and the order must therefore be reversed.

The reasons contained in the judge’s initial specification filed on May 27 which is set out below were, as the majority notes, manifestly inadequate. 1 On May 31 he filed an amended specification. The controlling *145 question is whether the reasons given in the amended specification for two of the grounds—insufficiency of the evidence and excessive damages— meet the standard of specificity mandated by section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure as that section was construed in Mercer v. Perez, 68 Cal.2d 104 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 436 P.2d 315 ] and Scala v. Jerry Witt & Sons, Inc., 3 Cal.3d 359 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 475 P.2d 864 ]. It is my opinion that they did not and that the order may not be supported on any of the remaining grounds.

I

The four new paragraphs…

*131 Opinion

Plaintiff was the driver of a Ford Falcon involved in a two-car collision. He brought a personal injury action against the Ford Motor Company and Holmes Tuttle, Inc., on a strict liability cause of action alleging that the accident was caused by a defect in the steering system of the Falcon. A jury trial resulted in a plaintiff’s verdict for $300,000. Defendants’ motion for a new trial was granted. Plaintiff appeals from the order granting the new trial.

The decisive issue on this appeal, as we view it, is whether the trial court’s specification of reasons for its order granting the new trial met the standard of specificity required by section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure as construed in Mercer v. Perez, 68 Cal.2d 104 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 436 P.2d 315 ], and Scala v. Jerry Witt & Sons, Inc., 3 Cal.3d 359 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 475 P.2d 864 ].

No attempt will be made to summarize all of the evidence adduced during the complex 14-day trial. The following statement of the essential facts will provide a sufficient setting for proper consideration of the issue raised by this appeal.

The accident:

Plaintiff was employed by a title company in public relations work…

Plaintiff was the driver of a Ford Falcon involved in a two-car collision. He brought a personal injury action against the Ford Motor Company and Holmes Tuttle, Inc., on a strict liability cause of action alleging that the accident was caused by a defect in the steering system of the Falcon. A jury trial resulted in a plaintiff's verdict for $300,000. Defendants' motion for a new trial was granted. Plaintiff appeals from the order granting the new trial. [1]

The decisive issue on this appeal, as we view it, is whether the trial court's specification of reasons for its order granting the new trial met the standard of specificity required by section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure as construed in Mercer v. Perez, 68 Cal.2d 104 [ 65 Cal. Rptr. 315 , 436 P.2d 315 ], and Scala v. Jerry Witt & Sons, Inc., 3 Cal.3d 359 [ 90 Cal. Rptr. 592 , 475 P.2d 864 ].

No attempt will be made to summarize all of the evidence adduced during the complex 14-day trial. The following statement of the essential facts will provide a sufficient setting for proper consideration of the issue raised by this appeal.

Plaintiff was employed by a title company in public relations work…