Browne v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Browne v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

4 P.2d 279, 117 Cal. App. 559, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 512

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 20, 1931

DocketDocket No. 6797.

StatusPublished

This text of 4 P.2d 279 (Browne v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Browne v. Los Angeles Railway Corp., 4 P.2d 279, 117 Cal. App. 559, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 512 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

BISHOP, J., pro tem.

The plaintiff is the appellant in this ease, having failed to convince the trial judge that the defendant caused her injuries by a sudden starting of one *560 of its cars as she was alighting. This was specified in her complaint as defendant’s negligent act, and the trial court specifically found that the car was standing still when she fell. The evidence in support of this finding preponderates.

With this finding, error, if existent, in not permitting the appellant to testify that she had (or had not had) arthritis, becomes of no consequence. Likewise, if it was error not to permit a witness to testify to the condition of the street where appellant fell (it was alleged in the complaint that she was thrown on to a pile of rocks), the error is harmless, for the testimony was directed entirely to the question of injuries, and as there is no negligence, the question of injuries is moot. We find no error prejudicial to appellant.

The judgment is affirmed. The appeal from the order denying a new trial is dismissed.

Conrey, P. J., and Houser, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BISHOP, J., pro tem.

The plaintiff is the appellant in this ease, having failed to convince the trial judge that the defendant caused her injuries by a sudden starting of one *560 of its cars as she was alighting. This was specified in her complaint as defendant’s negligent act, and the trial court specifically found that the car was standing still when she fell. The evidence in support of this finding preponderates.

With this finding, error, if existent, in not permitting the appellant to testify that she had (or had not had) arthritis, becomes of no consequence. Likewise, if it was error not to permit a witness to testify to the condition of the street where appellant fell (it was alleged in the complaint that she was thrown on to a pile of rocks), the error is harmless, for the testimony was directed entirely to the question of injuries, and as there is no negligence, the question of injuries is moot. We find no error prejudicial to appellant.

The judgment is affirmed. The appeal from the order denying a new trial is dismissed.

Conrey, P. J., and Houser, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 P.2d 279, 117 Cal. App. 559, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/browne-v-los-angeles-railway-corp-calctapp-1931.