Court: California Court of Appeal; May 29, 1956; California; State Appellate Court
John G. Oppenheimer appealed a judgment from the California Court of Appeals in favor of the Union Pacific Railroad Company concerning a damages claim for assault and battery. The original complaint alleged that the defendant's employees assaulted Oppenheimer while he was working for them, but this specific allegation was not included in the complaint. After an initial trial resulted in a judgment for the defendant, the court allowed Oppenheimer to file an amended complaint under the Federal Employers Liability Act. In this amended complaint, he claimed that the defendant failed to provide a safe work environment and that an employee, Grant Fraley, attacked him with a railroad lantern, causing injuries valued at $7,000.
The defendant denied the allegations and asserted contributory negligence on Oppenheimer's part. The court reopened the case for additional evidence and argument, resulting in a judgment for Oppenheimer for $500. After the judgment was satisfied, Oppenheimer sought to vacate the judgment, arguing that the court did not make findings on his initial cause of action, rendering the judgment void. The court denied this motion, leading to Oppenheimer's appeal regarding the lack of findings on the first cause of action and the denial of his motion to vacate the judgment.
Plaintiff argues that the court's failure to make findings on material issues renders the judgment void. However, since the appeal relies solely on the judgment roll, the absence of findings is not grounds for reversal. Established case law, including Lincoln v. Averill and Brown v. Republic Productions, indicates that to reverse a judgment for lack of findings, the record must demonstrate that sufficient evidence was available to support a finding for the appellant. In the absence of a reporter's transcript or proper evidence, the appeal assumes no evidence was presented that would justify the requested findings. Calkins v. Berliner reinforces this by stating that if evidence is not included in the appeal record, the court must assume no evidence was provided regarding omitted issues. Consequently, the appellate court will not consider objections to the lack of findings unless the record explicitly shows that evidence was submitted for those issues. As a result, the judgment is affirmed, and the appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate the judgment is dismissed as nonappealable.
