Souza

The plaintiff sued to recover a judgment for damages for personal injury. At the end of the plaintiff’s case the defendant moved for a, nonsuit. The motion was granted. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial. That motion was denied and the plaintiff has appealed. In his first -point the plaintiff contends that the motion for a nonsuit was not sufficiently specific. The motion was based on the ground that it had not been shown by the evidence in the case that the defendant was guilty of any carelessness or negligence in the operation of its truck proximately causing this accident. The plaintiff quotes 9 California Jurisprudence, page 949, as follows: “It is, therefore, settled law that a motion for a nonsuit must point the attention of the court and counsel to the precise grounds upon which it is made.” We think that the motion was as specific as the pleadings and the facts called for.

On the 15th of May, 1926, the plaintiff was a passenger on an outbound McAllister Street car. He and his family, were seated on a bench which was inside of a movable metallic gate which at that time was closed. The bench was on the south side of the front end of the street-car. When the…