What is the test for a statement of reasons in a motor vehicle case?

The statement of reasons in Dizon, supra, 44 Cal.App.3d 146 failed this standard whereas the one in Jones v. Citrus Motors, supra, 8 Cal.3d 706 does not. One significant difference between the two cases is the statement of reasons in Jones v. Citrus Motors identifies specific evidence, analyzes in what respects the court found such evidence lacking in probative value, and links that analysis to the relevant substantive law.

Providing a legally adequate specification of reasons is not onerous. For example, in Romero v. Riggs (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 117 (Romero), a patient sued an optometrist for failing to diagnose and treat his glaucoma. The jury found the optometrist had been negligent, but also found such negligence was not a cause of the patient's injury. (Id. at p. 120.) The trial court granted the patient's motion for a new trial and filed the following statement of reasons, which was upheld on appeal:

Page 33