Landers v. Morales
Filed 5/24/06 Landers v. Morales CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WILLIAM RACE LANDERS, Plaintiff, Appellant and Real Party in Interest, v. JUANITA MORALES, Defendant, Appellant and Petitioner. | F047330 & F047258 (Super. Ct. No. 10-195203) OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Valeriano Saucedo, Judge.
Nelson, Rozier & Bettencourt, M. Robert Bettencourt and Ricky Tripp, for Defendant, Appellant and Petitioner.
Dooley, Herr & Peltzer, and Leonard C. Herr, for , Plaintiff, Appellant and Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
William Landers sued Juanita Morales for personal injuries after Morales hit Landers in a car accident. At trial, Morales did not seriously dispute that she was negligent in causing the collision; rather, Morales claimed that Landers's claimed injuries and damages were exaggerated, at best. A jury apparently agreed with Morales, and found her negligent but also found Landers to have suffered no damages. Landers filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court granted. The trial court, however, failed to file a statement of reasons supporting the new trial order within the time period required by Code of Civil Procedure section 657.[1] Morales took an appeal from the order granting the new trial; Landers cross-appealed on the grounds that the jury's verdict must be reversed for insufficient evidence.[2] We reverse the new trial order and affirm the reinstated judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2000, Morales's vehicle struck Landers's vehicle when Morales pulled out in front of Landers on Mooney Boulevard in Visalia. The parties agree there was no serious dispute as to Morales's negligence at trial; rather, the issue at trial was the nature and extent of Landers's injuries. Landers was a â€
