Central Copper Co. v. Klefisch
Decision Date | 02 October 1928 |
Docket Number | Civil 2713 |
Citation | 270 P. 629,34 Ariz. 230 |
Parties | CENTRAL COPPER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. MARGARET B. KLEFISCH, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Cochise. W. A. O'Connor, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr. C O. Anderson, Mr. J. T. Kingsbury, and Messrs. Kingan & Darnell, for Appellant.
Messrs Knapp, Boyle & Pickett, for Appellee.
Margaret B. Klefisch, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against Central Copper Company, a corporation, hereinafter called defendant, for damages for personal injuries claimed to have been received by her as the result of an automobile accident for which defendant was legally responsible. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $25,000. After the usual motion for new trial was overruled, defendant brought the case before us for review.
There are four assignments of error, which we will consider as seems advisable. The first is that the evidence did not support the verdict and judgment. It is, of course, the well-established rule of law in this state that this court does not weigh the evidence on an assignment of this nature. If there is sufficient competent evidence in the record, which, if believed by the jury, would as a matter of law sustain the verdict, the assignment is not well taken. Durazo v. Ayers, 21 Ariz. 373, 188 P. 868; Leadville Min. Co. v. Hemphill, 17 Ariz. 146, 149 P. 384; Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. Almanzo, 22 Ariz. 431, 198 P. 457. In order that we may determine this assignment, it is necessary that we consider the complaint and the evidence in support thereof. The complaint alleges, after setting forth the formal requirements:
It then sets up that the driver furnished by defendant was careless, incompetent and inexperienced, and that he operated the automobile in question in such a negligent manner that plaintiff was seriously injured thereby. The complaint concludes with the usual prayer for relief in the sum of $100,000. There was a second cause of action also set up in the complaint, but, as plaintiff elected to stand on her first cause, we need not consider the second.
There is no question but that the evidence is sufficient to show that plaintiff was very seriously injured as a result of the carelessness of the driver of the automobile in which she was riding at the time of the accident. The dispute is as to whether defendant is legally responsible for such negligence. The principal evidence upon which plaintiff relies to sustain the burden of proof which rests upon her on this point consists of her own testimony, that of the driver, and that of her sister. Plaintiff testified in substance that she had worked for defendant company from February, 1920, until January 5, 1924, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At that time defendant closed its Pittsburgh offices, and plaintiff came to Arizona to continue her employment here. Her compensation was to be $125 per month, with room, board and laundry in addition. While en route to Arizona, T. M. McCauley, president of defendant company, met plaintiff, in company with two other ladies employed by the company, on the train traveling between El Paso and Willcox. Plaintiff then testified as follows in regard to a conversation with McCauley, which she claims occurred at that time:
On Saturday, the 18th of January, plaintiff and several other employees of defendant had a conversation, in which it was suggested that they have an auto party that evening. There were present at the conversation plaintiff, Mrs. Hummer, Miss Dunn, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Ramsey, and Mr. Morrison, all being employees of defendant. It was agreed among them that Kirby should see Stephenson, the person who McCauley had told plaintiff must grant permission for the use of the company car for pleasure trips. Later Kirby reported to plaintiff that Stephenson had granted the permission. The party, consisting of all the persons above named, except Ramsey, started about seven P.M., but, as the car they were using was somewhat crowded, plaintiff rode as far as Willcox with Mr. Tout, one of the officers of the company, and then got in the car occupied by the other members of the party, and driven by one Whiteside, who was employed as chauffeur by defendant. The accident occurred on the road between Willcox and Cochise. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital in Tucson, and while she was there was visited by Mr. McCauley, the president of the company, Mr. Stephenson, its vice-president, and Mr. Prout, its general manager. Plaintiff testified as follows, concerning statements made during the course of these visits:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Steelman
...There have been, however, several cases which had considered what evidence is appropriate on rebuttal. See Central Copper Co. v. Klefisch, 34 Ariz. 230, 270 P. 629 (1928); Lowery v. Turner, 19 Ariz.App. 299, 506 P.2d 1084 (1973). These cases indicate that the decision whether rebuttal evide......
-
Blecick v. School Dist. No. 18 of Cochise County
...of the construction. The admission of evidence is a matter wholely within the discretion of the trial court, Central Copper Co. v. Klefisch, 34 Ariz. 230, 243, 270 P. 629 (1928), and we find no abuse of discretion. Furthermore, certificates of payment given during the progress of the work a......
-
McCoy v. Krengel
... ... 330, ... 200 P. 41; Thorne v. Lampros, 52 Nev. 417, 288 P ... 601; Central Copper Co. v. Keifisch, 34 Ariz. 230, ... 270 P. 629; Goebel v. Vaught, 126 Ore. 332, 269 P ... ...
-
State v. Tafoya
...are now in the case for all purposes because no objection was made to the admission of Lorenzo's testimony. Central Copper Company v. Klefisch, 34 Ariz. 230, 270 P. 629. We said in Klefisch: '* * * So far as the answers to which no objection was made, * * * are concerned, they were properly......