Legal Opinion

Candido v. Huitt

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 9, 1984No. Civ. 28304PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WORK, J.

Nicholas J. Candido appeals an order granting a new trial- on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence after a jury specifically found *921his negligence in driving his motorcycle was not a proximate cause of his injuries sustained when he struck an unlit truck stopped at night in the “fast” lane of a freeway. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subd. 6.) We find the trial court’s reasons for granting the motion are adequately specified and the order is within the trial court’s broad discretion. However, we limit the new trial to the issues of Candido’s comparative negligence and proximate…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Mercer v. PerezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Silberg v. California Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co.California Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.California Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Leipert v. HonoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Falls v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
  2. County of San Diego v. BressiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  3. Candido v. HuittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  4. Kabran v. Sharp MemorialCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API