Lusardi

Lusardi v. Prukop

Good Law
116 Cal. App. 506·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 458·2 P.2d 870
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 4, 1931Docket No. 7811.California1,229 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ward, J.

These are actions for personal injuries consolidated for trial wherein judgments were entered for each plaintiff. The cases have likewise by stipulation been consolidated on appeal.

Defendant Prukop filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff Noles wherein he claimed damages. During the trial plaintiffs deemed it material to establish the particular hospital to which defendant had been taken after the accident. Accordingly witness Monahan, the storekeeper of the Central Emergency Hospital in San Francisco, who had charge of the records of all emergency hospitals in San Francisco, “when the books are filled up” was called as a witness. He testified that the records were correct but it was clearly demonstrated that Monahan had reference simply to the fact that it was a record containing the names of patients. There was no testimony that the entries were made under the witness’ direction or supervision or that he recognized the handwriting or even knew the party or parties who had made the various entries. The evidence does not disclose whether these entries were made by any person in the performance of a duty enjoined by law (see sec. 1920, Code Civ. Proc.) or under the direction…

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.