Sichterman

Sichterman v. R. M. Hollingshead Co.

Good Law
117 Cal. App. 504·4 P.2d 181
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 16, 1931Docket No. 7628.California855 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tyler, J.

Action for damages for personal injuries. The appeal is from a judgment rendered in a second trial of the action. When the case was first tried the jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $20,000. Upon appeal from the judgment rendered on this verdict a reversal was had. Thereafter, upon a second trial, a verdict and judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the sum of $15,000 was rendered. This is an appeal from such judgment." The original judgment was reversed upon the ground that the evidence failed to show negligence on the part of defendant.

Upon the second trial plaintiff offered, and there was received in evidence, new and additional testimony hearing upon this issue. It was claimed by defendant at the trial that plaintiff changed his testimony and sought to prove that defendant’s negligence was due to its. driving at an excessive rate of speed; that such testimony was false and fabricated and designed to meet the exigency of the case which arose after the appellate court held there was a failure of proof as to negligence on the part of defendant, as plaintiff had positively disclaimed, upon the first trial, any knowledge of the speed at which defendant was…

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.