Pirrone v. Nuccio

5 Citing cases

  1. Stuart v. Matranga

    162 Cal.App.2d 469 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    [1] The granting or refusing to grant a motion for new trial is largely within the discretion of the trial court. ( Pirrone v. Nuccio, 78 Cal.App.2d 864, 868 [ 179 P.2d 18]; Parks v. Dexter, 100 Cal.App.2d 521, 527 [ 224 P.2d 121].) [2] The trial judge had the opportunity to see the witnesses, hear them testify, and therefore had an advantage over the justices of this court.

  2. Napolin v. Hotel Rose

    137 Cal.App.2d 701 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 3 times

    In H.C. Capwell Co. v. Blake, 9 Cal.App. 101 [ 98 P. 51], a landlord negligently failed to control the drainage of rainwater from the roof; in Rathbun Co. v. Simmons, 90 Cal.App. 692, 698-699 [ 266 P. 369], a tenant's merchandise was damaged by water from a defective roof and drain system which was under the landlord's control and there was evidence that the latter had been negligent. In Pirrone v. Nuccio, 78 Cal.App.2d 864 [ 179 P.2d 18], it conclusively appeared that an upper tenant had notice that there was a leakage of water "either from the bathroom or from the toilet room into the ceiling of the restaurant [below] during a ten-day period immediately preceding the deluge" (p. 869) and failed to use ordinary care in the inspection of the facilities provided for the occupants of the rooms on the second floor of the building directly over the premises occupied by the plaintiff. In Columbia Lab., Inc. v. Cailfornia Beauty Supply Co., 24 Cal.2d 114 [ 148 P.2d 15], the injury was caused by water that seeped through walls and ceiling during a rain storm that occurred after the landlord had negligently failed to repair a fire damaged roof.

  3. Henningsen v. Howard

    117 Cal.App.2d 352 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 10 times

    Here again it is the rule that the matter is largely in the discretion of the trial court, that it is its exclusive province to weigh the evidence and to draw inferences from it. If, however, as a matter of law there is no substantial evidence to support a judgment in favor of the moving party, an order granting a new trial must be reversed on appeal. ( Brooks v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 27 Cal.2d 305, 307 [ 13 P.2d 689]; Pirrone v. Nuccio, 78 Cal.App.2d 864, 868-869 [ 179 P.2d 18].) Appellants urge among other things that there is no substantial evidence on which either of the two defendants could be held liable to plaintiff on any of the counts.

  4. Parks v. Dexter

    100 Cal.App.2d 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)   Cited 12 times
    In Parks v. Dexter, 100 Cal.App.2d 521, 527 [ 224 P.2d 121], it was held that it was within the province of the trial court to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict for the damages allowed and that the appellate court may not reverse the order unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion.

    If the court is satisfied that the finding of the jury is contrary to the weight of the evidence, it may grant a new trial. ( Pirrone v. Nuccio, 78 Cal.App.2d 864, 868 [ 179 P.2d 18].) As was said in Estate of Phillipi, 76 Cal.App.2d 100, 103 [ 172 P.2d 377]:

  5. Pearl v. Kaline

    82 Cal.App.2d 910 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947)   Cited 1 times

    Therefore, since the evidence would have supported a finding that defendant was negligent and plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, the trial court's order granting a motion for a new trial finds substantial support in the evidence and such order is binding upon this court. Pirrone v. Nuccio, 78 Cal.App.2d 864 [ 179 P.2d 18], is not here in point for the reason that in such case the evidence was not in conflict as to plaintiff's conduct, and the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn therefrom was that plaintiff was contributorily negligent. We find the same situation in Weissman v. Seehusen, 55 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 131 P.2d 10], and Mundy v. Marshall, 8 Cal.2d 294 [ 65 P.2d 65].