Hanson

Hanson v. LeClerc CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2016C077860California3,872 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 8/29/16 Hanson v. LeClerc CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte) ----

WILLIAM HANSON, C077860

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 156254)

v.

RAOUL LECLERC, as Special Administrator, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Defendant George Martin ran a red light while driving his van and struck the left fender of plaintiff William Hanson’s car. A jury found Martin’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Hanson’s alleged injuries. Hanson filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Hanson contends insufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict and the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. We shall affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND…

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.