Under the substantial evidence rule, the court affirms a judgment in favor of defendant.  The jury could have believed defendant’s testimony that he did not act negligently in pulling into an intersection from a stop sign, thinking wrongly that he could get through it safely before plaintiff’s car came through in a cross-direction.  Not every mistake is negligent, and the jury might also have found that plaintiff should have slowed to avoid the accident.  The jury was entitled to believe defendant even though other witnesses contradicted his testimony that he had stopped at the stop sign.  That defendant’s testimony was self-serving did not keep it from being testimony that the jury could properly rely on.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2 (Ashmann-Gerst, Acting P.J.); October 24, 2016; 2016 WL 6157895