Huett

— Plaintiff, Scott Bradley Huett, aged 3, brought this action for damages, through his guardian ad litem, for personal injuries sustained when he was struck by an automobile driven by defendant Richard Jerd Good and owned by defendants Harold W. Good and Roberta J. Good. A nonjury trial resulted in judgment for defendants.

Appellant’s major claim is that defendant was negligent as a matter of law; short of that counsel's argument that “the driver of the automobile was negligent” amounts only to an invitation to this court to review the evidence contrary to settled precedent. In appraising appellant’s assertion of insufficiency of the evidence in this regard we are bound by the familiar rules thus stated in New v. New, 148 Cal.App.2d 372, 383 [ 306 P.2d 987 ] : “The appellate court must accept as established all facts and all inferences favorable to respondent which find substantial support in the evidence. ‘ And where appellant urges the insufficiency

of the evidence to sustain the findings . . . the rule is that, “Such contention requires [appellant\ to demonstrate that there is no substantial evidence to support the challenged findings.” (Nichols v. Mitchell, 32 Cal.2d 598,…