# Witt v. Jackson

> California Supreme Court · December 4, 1961 · 57 Cal. 2d 57

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9573755

## Case

- **Full name:** JAMES ROBERT WITT Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RAYMOND LESTER JACKSON, Defendant and Respondent; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Intervener and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 4, 1961
- **Citations:** 57 Cal. 2d 57; 17 Cal. Rptr. 369; 366 P.2d 641; 1961 Cal. LEXIS 182
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Schauer
- **Judges:** Schauer
- **Cited by:** 203 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9573755

## Opinion text

SCHAUER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I find in the record no error shown to be prejudicial to either of the plaintiffs or to the intervener. Accordingly I would affirm the judgment in its entirety.
In the absence of a showing by plaintiff-appellant Grossman that the verdict against him was based on a finding that he was contributively negligent we should assume—indeed, on this record, infer—in favor of the judgment, that the verdict implies a finding that defendant was not negligent.
The handling of appeals in personal injury actions now constitutes an overly large portion of the work of this court. We should not lightly presume in favor of reversal that an error in instructions has worked a miscarriage of justice within the provisions of the Constitution, article VI, section 4½. 1
There is no suggestion in the majority opinion that the *74 jury returned a special verdict finding that defendant was guilty of negligence and that plaintiff-appellant Grossman was guilty of contributory negligence; nor is there a suggestion that such plaintiff-appellant requested, and the trial court refused to instruct the jury to return, a special verdict pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 624 and 625.
In the absence of such a special finding, or of a request therefor refused by the trial court, the reversal appears to be based on unwarranted speculation and is, therefore, obnoxious to the Constitution, article VI, section 4%. This conclusion is emphasized by the fact that the evidence strongly supports the implied finding that defendant was not guilty of any negligence proximately causing injury to the plaintiffs.
For the reasons stated the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
McComb, J., concurred.
"No judgment shall he set aside, or new trial granted, in any case, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9573755. Public record. Not legal advice.