O'Keefe

-In this action for personal injuries plaintiff appeals from a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of the presentation of his evidence. The rule is familiar that “A nonsuit may be granted only where, disregarding conflicting evidence on behalf of the defendants and giving to plaintiff’s evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, therein indulging in every legitimate inference which may be drawn from that evidence, the result is a determination that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.” (Reynolds v. Willson (1958) 51 Cal.2d 94, 99 [ 331 P.2d 48 ]; Blumberg v. M. & T. Incorporated (1949) 34 Cal.2d 226, 229 [ 209 P.2d 1 ]; Estate of Lances (1932) 216 Cal. 397, 400 [ 14 P.2d 768 ].) A careful analysis of the record of this brief trial impels us to the conclusion, however reluctant, that it contains no substantial evidence to support a verdict for plaintiff under any tenable theory of liability, and hence that the judgment should be affirmed.

The general factual background of the case will be given first, and further facts will be developed where relevant. Defendant South End Rowing Club leases from the…

-I dissent.

The nature and extent of the trial court’s power to effectively withhold the fact issues of a lawsuit from the jury was carefully stated by this court in Estate of Lances, 216 Cal. 397 , at page 400 [ 14 P.2d 768 ], as follows: “A nonsuit or a directed verdict may be granted ‘only when, disregarding conflicting evidence and giving to plaintiff’s evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, herein indulging in every legitimate inference which may be drawn from that evidence, the result is a determination that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff if such a verdict were given.’ [Citations.] Unless it can be said as a matter of law, that, when so considered, no other reasonable conclusion is legally deducible from the evidence, and that any other holding would be so lacking in evidentiary support that a reviewing court would be impelled to reverse it upon appeal, or the trial court to set it aside as a matter of law, the trial court is not justified in taking the case from the jury.” (Italics added.) The attitude which the law requires of us in a case of this kind is therefore clear, and our inquiry is…