Hammond v. OrangeCountyTransportation Authority
Filed 9/5/08 Hammond v. Orange County Transportation Authority CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
DARON HAMMOND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent. | G039530 (Super. Ct. No. 06CC05668) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven L. Perk, Judge. Affirmed.
Daron Hammond, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, Craig G. Farrington and Roberta A. Kraus, for Defendant and Respondent.
Daron Hammond appeals from a judgment of nonsuit in this negligence action against the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). He asserts the trial was unfair, the trial judge used racist language and was biased, and he has been left saddled with unpaid medical bills. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
Hammonds brief fails to set out a statement of facts or argument, instead presenting some of his medical records along with a rambling, two-page statement of grievances. Our examination of the clerks transcript reveals the following. In May 2006, Hammond commenced a negligence action against OCTA. The complaint alleged he was injured while riding on an OCTA bus that, through the fault of the bus driver, was involved in a collision. Hammond was represented by counsel initially, but appeared in propria persona after filing a substitution of attorney in May 2007.
OCTAs trial brief argued it was not negligent, and Hammond did not suffer any injury as a result of the accident. Hammond was taken to a hospital for examination, where x-rays of his spine showed no damage. He was diagnosed with a back sprain and given pain medication. OCTA contended Hammond had a pre-existing back condition dating to 2001, when he had settled a workers compensation claim for a back injury, and he sought medical treatment for back injuries eight times in 2004 and 2005. Medical records of treatment for all of these injuries were attached.
The case was tried by the court. Hammond presented an opening statement and offered in evidence what is described in a minute order as a stack of medical records. (No reporters transcript appears in the record.) They were excluded on objection by OCTA (the basis for the objection is not revealed). Hammond then testified, showed his body scar to the court, and concluded his case. OCTA moved for nonsuit, the motion was granted, and judgment was entered for OCTA.
DISCUSSION
Hammond argues his lawyer took this [case] and turned it against me. When OCTA said it would fight the case, my attorne[y] decided to resign[]. He asserts the trial judge initially said OCTA was at fault, then ch[a]nged everything arou[n]d. According to Hammond, the [judge] used sla[v]ery and racist [mentality] and ordered him to speak louder, making racist suggestions and faces . . . [and] racial remarks.
These unsupported allegations do not provide a basis for reversal. A judgment of a lower court is presumed correct, and it is appellants burden to affirmatively demonstrate error. (Jacques Interiors v. Petrak (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1363, 1369.) An appellant must provide a record sufficient to evaluate his claims. Where an issue involves oral proceedings, this included a reporters transcript or an acceptable substitute. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120 (b).) An appellants opening brief must separately state each point and support it by argument, citation of authority, and a summary of significant facts found in the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204 (a)(1)(B), (C), (a)(2)(C).)
None of these requirements has been met. There is no explanation of what Hammonds former counsel did wrong, nor citation of legal authority for the proposition it is actionable or requires reversal of the judgment obtained by OCTA. Similarly, we cannot evaluate claims of trial court bias without a reporters transcript to show what was said. Nor can we consider scattered, unidentified excerpts from medical records that were not admitted in evidence at trial. Looking to the merits, there is nothing to suggest error in granting a nonsuit, which is proper where plaintiffs evidence is insufficient to permit a finding in his favor. (Mejia v. CommunityHospital of San Bernardino (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1458.) Here, Hammonds case consisted entirely of his testimony. But not having provided a reporters transcript, Hammond gives us no basis to consider whether he made a prima facie showing that OCTA was negligent and its negligence caused his injury.
Since Hammond has failed to show any error, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. In the interests of justice, each side shall bear its own costs on appeal.
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
ARONSON, J.
IKOLA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
