Brinkworth v. Sam Seelig Co.
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of defendant’s negligence.
In its answer defendant denied the imputed negligence and alleged contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the ground that the testimony offered on behalf of plaintiff not only failed to show that defendant was guilty of negligence, but established the fact that plaintiff’s injuries were the result of contributory negligence. The motion was granted, followed by a judgment from which plaintiff…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Means v. Southern California Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
- Schmidt v. BauerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Williamson v. HardyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Hart v. . GrennellNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Herzog v. HemphillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Neel v. Mannings, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1942
- VIRGINIA CHANCE v. Lawry's, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1962
- Chalmers v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1937
- Nicola v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
- Nelson v. F. W. Woolworth & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1930
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.