Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines
56 Cal. 2d 498 · California Supreme Court · 1961
Facts
Plaintiff was attempting to board defendants' bus when the doors suddenly closed, catching her right hand and left foot. The bus then started, dragged her for some distance, and subsequently threw her to the pavement. Defendants contended that the plaintiff was negligent, either running into the side of the bus after the doors closed or attempting to enter after they had nearly closed. However, eyewitness testimony supported the plaintiff's account that she began to board while the bus was stationary with its doors wide open. As a result of the incident, plaintiff sustained severe, painful, disabling, and permanent injuries, including severed arteries and nerves in her left foot, fractured bones, deep lacerations, and an avulsion, leading to a permanently raised heel, chronic pain, and an open ulcer. She underwent nine operations and spent eight months in hospitals, with future medical care expected for life.
Procedural history
Defendants appealed from a judgment for plaintiff for $187,903.75 entered on a jury verdict. Their motion for a new trial, based on errors of law and excessiveness of damages, was denied. The case arrived at this court on appeal from that judgment.
Issue
Did the trial court err in its instructions to the jury regarding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, specifically concerning the defendant's superior knowledge, the plaintiff's participation, and the burden of proof? Were the damages awarded by the jury, totaling $187,903.75, excessive as a matter of law? Was it prejudicial error for plaintiff's counsel to argue damages for pain and suffering using a mathematical per diem formula?
Holding
The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff. It held that there was no prejudicial error in the res ipsa loquitur instructions, that the damages awarded were not excessive as a matter of law, and that any error regarding the mathematical formula argument for pain and suffering was waived.
Rule
An appellate court can only interfere with a jury's award of damages if the verdict is so large that it shocks the conscience and suggests passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the jury. The trial judge has greater discretion to reduce damages, but an appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or credibility. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not require the defendant to have superior knowledge of the accident, nor does plaintiff's participation preclude its application if her negligence was not a proximate cause. Instructions on res ipsa loquitur correctly state that defendants must rebut the inference of negligence with convincing evidence, not shift the burden of proof. Failure to object to an argument at trial, assign it as misconduct, or request an admonishment waives the right to raise it on appeal.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.