|
0532 In an order granting a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, the trial court's statement that "overwhelming medical evidence was that, had the defendant doctor not been negligent and had proper treatment [been] instituted when it could and should have been, the probabilities are that plaintiff's failure of eyesight would have been forestalled or delayed, if not prevented" was sufficient reference to the evidence to justify the order and its affirmance.CitationROMERO v RIGGS (New Trial) 24 CA4 117 [See: CCP 657]
|
|
