 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anandan v. Singapore Airlines Ltd.4/5/2005
se in appellants' in evidence. (Ibid.)
Appellants complain that the trial court erroneously found that the majority of the crash investigators were from Taiwan and Singapore, disregarding appellants' evidence that the majority were from the United States. Appellants also claim that substantial evidence does not support the trial court's finding that depositions in Singapore would be necessary, because appellants "pointed out" that much of the discovery in Singapore has already taken place, and the accident investigator is in Taiwan. Appellants suggest that the trial court should have considered their representation that they would bring damages evidence to California at their expense. They assert that the court should have given more weight to California's interest in ensuring the safety of flights into the State.
An abuse of discretion may be shown where there is no substantial evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 754.) Whenever an appellant contends that a judgment or order is not supported by substantial evidence, we start with the presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact, and the appellant must demonstrate that substantial evidence does not support the challenged findings. (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881.) A summary only of evidence favorable to the appellant "is not the `demonstration' contemplated under the above rule. [Citation.] Accordingly, if, as [appellants] here contend, `some particular issue of fact is not sustained, they are required to set forth in their brief all the material evidence on the point and not merely their own evidence. Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.' [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 881.)
In sum, a substantial evidence review is concerned not with the unsuccessful party's showing in the trial court, but with the successful party's showing. (Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 51, 60.)
Absent from appellants' briefs is any summary of the evidence supporting respondents' motions or the trial court's findings. Appellants' statement of facts is taken almost entirely from their own declarations and exhibits filed in the federal court in opposition to respondents forum non conveniens motions in that court. And the "facts" purporting to relate to respondents motions is no more than an argumentative summary of respondents' contentions. We therefore presume that the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence. (See Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 881.)
"`Where the issue on appeal is whether the trial court has abused its discretion, the showing necessary to reverse the trial court is insufficient if it presents facts which merely afford an opportunity for a different opinion: "An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge. To be entitled to relief on appeal from the result of an alleged abuse of discretion it must clearly appear that the injury resulting from such a wrong is sufficiently grave to amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice . . . ." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Dolan v. Buena Engineers, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1504, italics in the original.) Appellants must establish that the trial court's exercise of discretion exceeded all bounds of reason. (See Denham v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 566.)
Since appellants' discussion of the evidence is wholly inadequate to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings, and wholly inadequate to review the trial court's conclusions for an abuse of discretion, they h
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|