Legal Opinion

Smith v. Hollander

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 22, 1927No. Docket No. 5797PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKoford, P. J.

Appellant, Hattie Hollander, appeals from a judgment awarding damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in being struck by said appellant’s automobile. Her co-defendant, Arthur Hollander, was granted a nonsuit.

The proof offered by the plaintiff was as follows: While walking westerly on the south sidewalk of Post Street, plaintiff was struck and injured by appellant’s automobile; which ran on to the sidewalk unawares from behind him. He did not see it approach nor hear any horn or warning signal. The only eye-witness 'for the plaintiff testified:

“I saw (the) automobile coming down…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Scarborough v. UrgoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Connor v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Storrs v. Los Angeles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Union Constr. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Cody v. Market St. Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1905

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Harke v. HaaseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1934
  2. Scott v. BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Maki v. Murray HospitalMontana Supreme Court · 1932
  4. People v. LimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Jolley v. ClemensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API