Dorsic

Dorsic v. Kurtin

Good Law
19 Cal. App. 3d 226·1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1273·96 Cal. Rptr. 528
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 11, 1971Civ. 35405California5,092 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stephens, J.

There are two appeals in the instant cause: one by plaintiff from the granting of defendants’ motions for a new trial after judgment for plaintiff on his action for damages, and one by defendant Richfield from the verdicts for plaintiff and for cross-defendant Kurtin on Richfield’s cross-complaint seeking indemnity.

The complaint alleged serious and permanent injuries to plaintiff as the result of negligence on the part of defendants, and the prayer sought substantial damages. The cross-complaint sought indemnity. The actions were tried to a jury. In the main action, a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff and against both defendants in the sum of $32,000; on the cross-complaint, a verdict was returned in favor of cross-defendant Kurtin. Rich-field moved for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict in both the main action and on the cross-complaint. The grounds urged for the new trial were: (1) irregularity in the proceedings; (2) orders of the court prevented a fair trial; (3) abuse of discretion by the court; (4) surprise; (5) excessive damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice; (6) insufficiency of the evidence;…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.