Hazel

Hazel v. McGrath

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 2809·212 Cal. App. 2d 18·27 Cal. Rptr. 713
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 17, 1963Civ. No. 26118California998 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burke, J.

Plaintiff filed an action alleging negligence and seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in a rear end type automobile collision. The case was submitted to the jury on the issues of negligence, proximate cause, contributory negligence and damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant.

The specific injury for which plaintiff seeks damages is the detachment of the retina which caused blindness in his left *20 eye. Prior to this automobile accident, plaintiff had four unnatural conditions of the left eye: refractive error, presbyopia (loss of focusing power which occurs with old age), spasm of the ciliary muscle, and an incipient cataract. Also plaintiff had one kidney removed some time before the accident occurred and he had been suffering from tuberculosis for a number of years.

Four medical experts testified at this trial; three on behalf of plaintiff and one for defendant. The first, for plaintiff, testified that the detachment of the retina was not caused by any of the preexisting conditions of the left eye; that while he was unable to determine the exact cause of the injury the impact of .the accident was a prime suspect as a possible cause. Plaintiff’s…

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.