How have the courts reviewed evidence in a personal injury case?

Defendant argues the dates on the photographs are susceptible to manipulation and the coloring of the bruises shows they did not appear on the day the photographs were taken. Defendant also argues the color of the bruises² did not substantiate the finding they occurred as a result of the abuse. Defendant further offers an extensive discussion of why evidence of the bruises as shown in the pictures is suspect and why it is more believable that they were caused by plaintiff's car accident. With all these arguments defendant is asking us to reweigh evidence, which, as stated above, is not our function. (People v. Xiong, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1268.)

Page 7

Defendant next argues the trial court erred in rejecting his self-defense claim. He points to the court's findings that both parties "hit each other" (italics omitted) and emphasizes his version of the events. He then leaps to the conclusion this was "mutual combat." This was despite the court's statement it did not "want to use the term mutual." We defer to the court's order when there is substantial evidence to support it, as here. (Sabbah v. Sabbah, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at pp. 822-823.)

Further, once again defendant's contention the appropriate level of review is de novo is incorrect. The trial court's decision to disallow defendant's self-defense claim came from its "application of the law to the facts[, which] is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious." (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th. 706, 712.)