## Facts

- Yetta Seffert attempted to board a Los Angeles Transit Lines bus at a regular stop while the front doors were open.
- As she stepped onto the bus and held the handrail, the doors closed on her shoulder, arm, and foot, and the bus began moving.
- Seffert was dragged a short distance while pinned in the doorway, then fell to the pavement.
- The bus driver testified he closed the doors after passengers had boarded and did not see Seffert in the doorway; he stopped shortly after hearing her cries and pounding.
- Multiple eyewitnesses supported Seffert’s account; defendants did not contest the sufficiency of evidence of liability on appeal.
- Seffert suffered severe, largely permanent injuries, including extensive damage to her left foot and heel, ongoing ulceration and drainage, nerve and vascular injury, disfigurement, and continuing pain; she underwent nine operations and lengthy hospitalization and treatment.
- Future medical care was anticipated, including a possible later amputation of the left foot.
- At the time of injury, Seffert was 42 years old and employed as a file clerk earning about $375 per month.
- The jury awarded $187,903.75, including claimed economic losses and significant pain-and-suffering damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed prejudicial instructional error on liability, including in its res ipsa loquitur instruction and related burden and causation concepts.
2. Whether the damages award was so excessive that it indicated passion, prejudice, or corruption, requiring appellate relief (new trial or reduction).

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Seffert.
- The Court held the challenged liability instructions, including res ipsa loquitur, were proper and not prejudicial.
- The Court held the damages award, though large, was not so disproportionate to the evidence as to show passion, prejudice, or corruption.
- A dissent would have required a reduction of the verdict as excessive.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur in California does not require defendant “superior knowledge” of the accident’s specific cause as a prerequisite to the doctrine’s application.
- Plaintiff participation in events leading to the accident does not bar res ipsa loquitur if there is evidence plaintiff negligence, if any, was not a proximate cause of the injury.
- A res ipsa instruction may state that an inference of negligence arises from the occurrence and that the inference is evidence the defendant may “meet or balance” with contrary evidence, without shifting the ultimate burden of proof from the plaintiff.
- Appellate review of personal-injury damages is highly deferential: a verdict will not be set aside or reduced unless it is so large as to indicate it resulted from passion, prejudice, or corruption.
- The jury’s evaluation of non-economic harm (pain, disfigurement, disability) and the trial judge’s denial of a new-trial motion are entitled to substantial weight on appeal.
- Comparisons to awards in other cases are not controlling; excessiveness is assessed on the record of the individual plaintiff’s injuries and losses.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a substantial jury verdict for severe and lasting injuries caused while boarding a bus, holding that the res ipsa loquitur instructions were legally correct and that appellate courts may not disturb a large damages award absent a clear showing it was driven by passion, prejudice, or corruption.


Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 56 Cal. 2d 498, 364 P.2d 337 (Cal. 1961)