What is the test for a motion for a nonsuit in a motor vehicle accident?

In Lasry v. Lederman, 147 Cal.App.2d 480, 489, 305 P.2d 663, 668, this court said: 'If there is a reason for the rule which deprives the judge of the power to grant a nonsuit when he is convinced that the evidence of plaintiff is so unsatisfactory and unreliable as to make it his duty to render a judgment for defendant, other than the fact that it is the prevailing rule, 89 C.J.S., Trial, 595, p. 396, it has escaped our attention. It is not necessarily the better rule.'

Again in 1960 in the case of White v. Shultis, 177 Cal.App.2d 641, 647, 2 Cal.Rptr. 414, 418, this court said: 'In the past we have had occasion to comment upon the anomalous situation which results from applying to a judgment of nonsuit in a nonjury case the same rules that are applied in jury cases. Lasry v. Lederman, 147 Cal.App.2d 480, 305 P.2d 663. Here defendant had testified fully as to the circumstances of the accident. If, instead of moving for a nonsuit, she had submitted her case without evidence other than that furnished by her own testimony, the judgment, of course, would have been in her favor. Although she prevailed on her motion for nonsuit, it was a hollow victory. Under applicable rules we are obliged to reverse the judgment of nonsuit even though the trial court was convinced by the testimony of the parties that plaintiff was negligent and defendant was not.'