Roth v. Keene
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Citation | 256 Cal.App.2d 725,64 Cal.Rptr. 399 |
Decision Date | 07 December 1967 |
Parties | Olga ROTH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert L. KEENE, doing business as Silverlake Termite Control Company, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 31262. |
Joseph W. Jarrett, Frank W. Woodhead and Henry F. Walker, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Brody & Grayson, Los Angeles, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action for personal injuries.
Plaintiff instituted this action against several defendants. A motion by Keene doing business as Silverlake Termite Control for a directed verdict was denied. A 10-to-2 jury verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff against Keene and against Donald Gurwell, doing business as A-1 Fumigating Company, and against plaintiff in favor of defendant, Beller. Judgment on the verdict was entered March 31, 1966. Keene filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, for a new trial. A new trial motion was ordered granted unless plaintiff consented to a remission of all damages in excess of $4,500 and was ordered denied if such consent be filed. Within the time prescribed plaintiff filed her consent to such remission and Keene's new trial motion was denied. Keene appealed from the judgment, the denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the denial of this motion for a new trial. No appeal was taken by plaintiff from the judgment in favor of defendant Beller. No appeal was taken by defendant Gurwell from the judgment in favor of plaintiff.
The facts are set forth in appellant's brief in considerable detail and length. Under the circumstances we see no need to give more than a brief idea of the facts as recited in the brief. Mrs. Roth was injured on Saturday, June 30, 1962, while hanging some clothing in a closet of an apartment into which she was moving when she stepped into a trap-door hole in the closet floor. The lid or cover of the trapdoor was leaning against the wall of the closet.
Keene had done some maintenance work on the premises; however the trap-door lid, or cover, was in place over the trap-door hole as of June 29, 1962, and Keene had completed his work on the premises. Apparently after Keene's work was finished the fumigator, Gurwell, came to the premises on June 29, 1966, to do his work. There was no agency relationship between appellant and any other defendant to the action. As stated in appellant's brief, 'In short, there is no evidence of any negligence, personal or imputed, on the part of appellant Keene proximately causing respondent's injury' and Further, the brief sets forth,
The trial judge refused to give an instruction 1 submitted by appellant. Appellant now urges that the jury was confused as to the law with reference to appellant's responsibility and that the giving of the instruction would have settled the confusion under which the jury was laboring.
Respondent has not seen fit to submit a brief in this case. The clerk of this court, pursuant to Rule 17(b) of the Rules on Appeal, notified respondent, in effect, that the case would be submitted for decision on the record, and on the appellant's opening brief, unless respondent filed a brief. No brief has been forthcoming.
This court said in Mann v. Andrus,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Youst v. Longo
...(1958) 160 Cal.App.2d Page 449 397 [325 P.2d 475] ), or an abandonment of any attempt to support the judgment. (Roth v. Keene (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 725 [64 Cal.Rptr. 399].) Since the burden is always on the appellant to show error, other courts have taken the position that the failure to fi......
-
Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co., s. B077931
...not disputed in whole or in part). Safeco has not responded to this issue at all, thus conceding the point. (See Roth v. Keene (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 725, 727, 64 Cal.Rptr. 399; Berry v. Ryan, (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 492, 493, 217 P.2d 1015.) For the reasons stated in the text, therefore, we co......
-
Walker v. Porter
...397, 325 P.2d 475), or was in effect an abandonment of any attempt to support the judgment. (Roth v. Keene (1967)256 Cal.App.2d 725, 64 Cal.Rptr. 399.) Other courts have taken the position that the failure to file a brief does not require an automatic reversal since the burden is always on ......
-
Votaw Precision Tool Co. v. Air Canada
...v. Griesinger (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 397, 325 P.2d 475), or an abandonment of any attempt to support the judgment. (Roth v. Keene (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 725, 64 Cal.Rptr. 399.) Since the burden is always on the appellant to show error, other courts have taken the position that the failure to ......
-
Youst v. Longo
...the California Horse Racing Board. 397 [325 P.2d 475] ), or an abandonment of any attempt to support the judgment. (Roth v. Keene (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 725 [64 Cal.Rptr. 399].) Since the burden is always on the appellant to show error, other courts have taken the position that the failure t......
-
Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co., s. B077931
...not disputed in whole or in part). Safeco has not responded to this issue at all, thus conceding the point. (See Roth v. Keene (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 725, 727, 64 Cal.Rptr. 399; Berry v. Ryan, (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 492, 493, 217 P.2d 1015.) For the reasons stated in the text, therefore, we co......
-
Votaw Precision Tool Co. v. Air Canada
...... Bolton & Hemer, by Donald H. Moore, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent. ROTH, Presiding Justice. Votaw Precision Tool Co., Inc., a California corporation (appellant), appeals from a judgment denying its request ...Griesinger (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 397, 325 P.2d 475), or an abandonment of any attempt to support the judgment. (Roth v. Keene (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 725, 64 Cal.Rptr. 399.) Since the burden is always on the appellant to show error, other courts have taken the position that ......
-
Walker v. Porter
......Kropach, Sherman Oaks, for plaintiff and appellant. No appearance for defendant and respondent. ROTH, Presiding Justice. Appellant, Cora Walker, appeals from a judgment of nonsuit in a malpractice action against respondent, Herbert M. ...Griesinger (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 397, 325 P.2d 475), or was in effect an abandonment of any attempt to support the judgment. (Roth v. Keene (1967)256 Cal.App.2d 725, 64 Cal.Rptr. 399.) Other courts have taken the position that the failure to file a brief does not require an automatic ......