Nahhas v. Pacific Greyhound Lines
| Decision Date | 15 May 1961 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Joe NAHHAS and Najil Nahhas, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PACIFIC GREYHOUND LINES and Homer Eugene Link, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 9885. |
Nelson, Coffin & Liedstrand, Turlock, for appellants.
Hansen, McCormick, Barstow & Sheppard, by R. A. McCormick, Fresno, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a defense verdict in a personal injury action.
The accident out of which this accident arose occurred at the intersection of a county road and a through highway. Appellant Najil Nahhas, driving a truck owned by appellant Joe Nahhas, along the county road, entered the through highway from the west. Respondent Link, driving a Greyhound bus, was approaching the intersection from the south. There was evidence that Najil, apparently without looking for oncoming traffic, entered the highway intersection and was struck by the bus. Sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict is not and could not be challenged.
Appellants first contend that the trial court erred in refusing permission to Joe Nahhas to take the stand and testify. He was not an eyewitness, and it appears could have testified only in respect to the issue of damages, which issue the jury did not reach in its deliberations since the respondents were absolved of liability by the verdict. The following occurred: Although appellants at the trial were represented by counsel, it appears that all was not harmony between Joe and the attorney. At one point Joe informed the court he wished to take the stand and testify. The court told him that he had the right to do so, but that Najil had already testified in appellants' behalf. Joe replied to the court that Najil had not testified in his, Joe's, behalf. Appellants' counsel then stated that he did not intend to have Joe testify because he did not witness the accident, because his only interest was in the damage to the truck, which subject had been amply covered, and because the subject matters to which he wished to testify were incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and would be prejudicial to Najil's case. Thereupon, the trial judge stated that there was nothing more he wished to say about the matter and the trial reconvened. It is not accurate to say, as appellants do, that the trial court prevented Joe from testifying. It is the prerogative of counsel, if not his duty, where he is of the opinion it would be detrimental to the best interests of the case he is presenting to have a certain witness testify, to refuse to call such witness, and even to persuade the clients against their expressed wishes to submit to his decision.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc.
...793, 24 Cal.Rptr. 161); (4) refusing to call a witness notwithstanding the client's contrary wishes (Nahhas v. Pacific Greyhound Lines (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 145, 146, 13 Cal.Rptr. 299); (5) stipulating to a trial judge's view of the premises (Lachman Bros. v. Muenzer (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 5......
-
Linsk v. Linsk
...that an attorney may refuse to call a witness even though his client desires that the witness testify (Nahhas v. Pacific Greyhound Lines (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 145, 146, 13 Cal.Rptr. 299); may abandon a defense he deems to be unmeritorious (Duffy v. Griffith Co. (1962) supra, 206 Cal.App.2d ......
-
Blanton v. Womancare, Inc.
...be able to rely upon the decisions he makes, even when the client voices opposition in open court. (Nahhas v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc. (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 145, 146, 13 Cal.Rptr. 299.) In such tactical matters, it may be said that the attorney's authority is implied in law, as a neces......
-
Duffy v. Griffith Co.
...v. Zahn, 62 Cal.App.2d 645, 649, 145 P.2d 371; Corbett v. Benioff, 126 Cal.App. 772, 776-777, 14 P.2d 1028. Nahhas v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 192 Cal.App.2d 145, 13 Cal.Rptr. 299. In this case the client insisted in open court that his attorney call a certain witness and the attorney decli......