Jensen

Jensen v. Findley

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 2d 536·1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 612·62 P.2d 430
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 16, 1936Civ. 1927California2,619 words

Opinion

Opinion

Marks, J.

This is an action to recover damages suffered by plaintiff in the loss of his left eye which was treated by defendant, a duly licensed physician who specialized in the treatment of diseases of the eye, ear, nose and throat in the city of El Centro in Imperial County. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the trial court granted defendant’s motion for an instructed verdict and under such an instruction the- jury brought in a verdict for the defendant. This appeal is from the judgment entered upon the verdict and from several unappealable orders.

In California there is a well-settled rule that before a trial judge may direct a jury to bring in a verdict for a defendant it must appear that there is no substantial evidence, nor inferences to be fairly drawn from the evidence, nor favorable presumptions fairly arising from the evidence, which would support a judgment for the plaintiff. With this rule in mind it becomes necessary to detail the evidence in order to determine if there is any such evidence, inference or presumption shown by the record.

Defendant was called by plaintiff as a witness for cross-examination under the provisions of section 2055 of the Code of Civil Procedure.…

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.