Bloomberg

Bloomberg v. Laventhal

Good Law
179 Cal. 616·1919 Cal. LEXIS 571·178 P. 496
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 1919L. A. No. 4582.California1,522 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Melvin, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages alleged to have been caused by a blow struck upon the side of his head by defendant’s fist. A verdict was given against defendant in the sum of five thousand dollars, and judgment was entered accordingly. From said judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial defendant appeals.

The first contention made by defendant’s counsel in their brief is that the verdict was grossly excessive, and that it was not supported by the evidence. It is true, that there was a decided conflict in the testimony offered by plaintiff and that on behalf of the defendant, but if the jurors believed plaintiff and his witnesses there was ample support for the conclusions reached by the jury regarding both the fact and the seriousness of the injury.

The essential circumstances developed by the testimony on the part of plaintiff, and the witnesses called in his behalf, were that Mr. Bloomberg was a clerk in the employ of Mr. Laventhal in the latter’s store; that they had a difference regarding some merchandise which a customer returned pursuant to an arrangement with Bloomberg that he might do so if dissatisfied with the goods; that on January 26, 1912, the…

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.