Richard

This is a personal injury action arising out of a two-car intersection collision. The jury found that plaintiff sustained damages in the sum of $6,000, but apportioned 50 percent fault to each *61 party and rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $3,000. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was granted on the ground that the court erred in admitting the opinion of defendants’ accident reconstruction expert that plaintiff was travelling in excess of the posted speed limit. Defendants appeal from the order granting a new trial.

Defendants contend that the expert’s opinion was admissible as a matter of law and that the court, therefore, abused its discretion in granting a new trial. Alternatively, defendants urge that if the order is affirmed, a new trial should be limited to the issue of apportionment of negligence. We have concluded that the new trial order should be affirmed without modification.

Briefly summarized, the pertinent evidence was as follows:

Plaintiff moved for a new trial on several grounds, including error of law occurring at the trial. 1 The court granted the motion, giving the following grounds and reasons:

*63 I

Defendants attack the new trial…

I concur in part and dissent in part.

The notice of intent to move for a new trial specified four grounds: (1) inadequacy of damages; (2) insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict; (3) that the verdict was against the law; and (4) an error in law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the plaintiff.

*70 In the order granting the motion for a new trial, the trial judge, as his grounds and reasons therefor, stated, “[t]he admission of the testimony of the defendant’s expert, Mr. Kruiper [¿ic], over the objection of lack of foundation was in error.” The order went on to discuss certain aspects of that lack of foundation and then recited: “The testimony of the expert of his opinion of plaintiff’s speed in excess of the legal speed limit prior to the collision was material to the issue of plaintiff’s contributory negligence, which issue was decided adversely to plaintiff. No other substantial evidence of contributory negligence was introduced.”

The order is completely silent about any other of the grounds specified in the notice of intent. However, the order likewise fails to limit the scope of the new trial to apportionment of damages, a result which seems clearly to…

TAMURA, Acting P.J.

This is a personal injury action arising out of a two-car intersection collision. The jury found that plaintiff sustained damages in the sum of $6,000, but apportioned 50 percent fault to each party and rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $3,000. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was granted on the ground that the court erred in admitting the opinion of defendants' accident reconstruction expert that plaintiff was travelling in excess of the posted speed limit. Defendants appeal from the order granting a new trial.

Defendants contend that the expert's opinion was admissible as a matter of law and that the court, therefore, abused its discretion in granting a new trial. Alternatively, defendants urge that if the order is affirmed, a new trial should be limited to the issue of apportionment of negligence. We have concluded that the new trial order should be affirmed without modification.

Briefly summarized, the pertinent evidence was as follows:

Plaintiff was northbound on Mt. Vernon Avenue in the City of San Bernardino and the signal controlling the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and 16th Street was green for traffic on Mt. Vernon.…