Buckley v. Wiseman

• Decision Date: 30 November 1961
• Citation: 197 Cal.App.2d 568,17 Cal.Rptr. 360
• Parties: Thomas BUCKLEY, a Minor, by Donald A. Buckley, his guardian ad litem, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Norman H. WISEMAN, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 47.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 360

17 Cal.Rptr. 360

197 Cal.App.2d 568

Thomas BUCKLEY, a Minor, by Donald A. Buckley, his guardian ad litem, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Norman H. WISEMAN, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 47.

District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

Nov. 30, 1961.

T. N. Petersen, Merced, for appellant.

Hansen, McCormick, Barstow & Sheppard, R. A. McCormick, Fresno, William B. Boone, San Bruno, for respondent.

BROWN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant and from an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Plaintiff, a minor 16 months of age, was run over by a car operated by defendant at the Castle Air Force Base in Merced County.

On December 13, 1958, defendant and a Sgt. Wiggs were taking a can filled with trash to a 'dumpster.' The trash can was on the back of defendant's station wagon. Sgt. Wiggs drove a car to the scene of the accident, parking ahead of defendant on the other side of the street; he walked over to defendant's car, assisted defendant in emptying the trash into the dumpster and placing the can on the end of defendant's station wagon; then walked back to his car and drove off. During this time defendant was at the rear of his vehicle. He got back in the station wagon and testified that before he had moved one foot he felt a bump, then rolled ahead and felt a second bump, stopped, got out of the car and discovered that he had hit a child. There was testimony that there were no children in the immediate area. Apparently no one saw the plaintiff, as the plaintiff's father and mother were visiting with the Nickens family who lived in the area when the accident occurred. Mr. Buckley, the father of plaintiff, went into this house for a glass of water when, about three to five minutes later, a neighbor came in to state that the plaintiff had been run over by a car. The plaintiff sustained a fracture of the left leg and fracture of the collarbone as a result of this accident.

On this evidence, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defendant.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. Since an order denying a new trial in a civil action is not appealable, plaintiff's attempted appeal from that order must be dismissed. (Code Civ.Proc. § 963; Pipoly v. Benson, 20 Cal.2d 366, 368, 125 P.2d 482.)

Plaintiff was apparently injured in a subsequent accident on November 6, 1959, in which the right leg was broken. There are no details as to how this accident occurred.

As far as the issues are contained in this matter, there is no issue as to contributory negligence by the plaintiff or the imputed negligence of the parents of the plaintiff, nor is there any issue of the condition of the premises or notice thereof. The only issue before the court appears to be whether or not there was error in allowing hereinafter quoted testimony of Mr. McCormick's cross-examination of Dr. Hicks, plaintiff's witness, as to a subsequent accident.

'Q. Did she [meaning the mother] just ask you for a check-up of the left leg?

'A. She asked me for a check-up of the child in general.

'Q. Then I assume she told you that after the accident involving my client, another car ran over the little boy and busted the other leg?'

This line of questioning was objected to by counsel for the plaintiff and was overruled by the court.

The jury was also instructed that there was no issue of contributory negligence involved.

X-rays produced by plaintiff's counsel admitted in evidence and shown to the jury included X-rays of fractures of both legs.

The defendant claims that the evidence of the subsequent accident, the breaking of the right leg, was relevant in connection with a claim for permanent injury or disability, particularly as to whether or not the left leg would be permanently shortened. It was also necessary to compare the left leg with the right leg, which defendant's doctor, Dr. Prigge, stated was impossible to do while the right leg was still in a cast. Apparently there was no objection to Dr. Prigge's testimony.

Plaintiff's brief makes a great deal out of the injection into evidence of a subsequent injury to the plaintiff. He cites the general rule that the evidence of a driver's previous accident is inadmissible since such evidence would be immaterial in determining the driver's negligence on the occasion in question. He cites Lowenthal v. Mortimer, 125 Cal.App.2d 636, 270 P.2d 942. In this case the court said at page 640, 270 P.2d at page 945:

'There are many reported cases in this and other jurisdictions involving efforts of both plaintiffs and defendants to place before a jury evidence of past personal injury lawsuits. It is generally held that evidence of previous accidents is inadmissible in a civil action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, since such evidence is immaterial in the determination of the driver's negligence on the occasion in question. Hall v. Young, 218 Ark. 348, 236 S.W.2d 431, 20 A.L.R.2d 1207, 1210. The admission of such evidence is considered prejudicially injurious. Reid Auto Co. v. Gorsczya, Tex.Civ.App. 144 S.W. 688.'

Plaintiff also quotes from Perrotti v. Sampson, 163 Cal.App.2d 280, 286, 329 P.2d 310, 314, as follows:

'Evidence of previous accidents is properly excluded since it has no probative value on the question of the party's negligence in the case at issue. [Citation] In contradistinction to such evidence, the mere fact of the accident and the testimony tending to show that decedent was emotionally upset when he started to cross the highway would seem relevant on the question of contributory negligence. Cope v. Davison, 30 Cal.2d 193, 202, 180 P.2d 873, 171 A.L.R. 667.'

Plaintiff also cites that there are exceptions to the general rule to show contributory negligence, and quotes from McGraw v. Friend and Terry Lumber Co., 120 Cal. 574, 577, 52 P. 1004, 1005, where the court said:

'Whether the court erred in refusing defendant's motion to strike out the evidence of Patrick Barry, to the effect that one night, sometime after the accident which is the subject of this action, he 'stepped back of the bulkhead and fell down,' need not be decided. It may tend to show negligence in permitting the space to be unprotected, and that in fact it was a dangerous place; but, on the other hand, it tends strongly to sustain appellant's contention that it was contributory negligence in any one who knew the condition of the unfinished sidewalk, and the unprotected space between it and the shed, to attempt to use it at night.'

The real problem before us is whether or not there was error in the admission of evidence with regard to the second accident involving the plaintiff. The jury was instructed as follows:

'You are instructed...