Legal Opinion

Babcock v. Los Angeles Traction Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 1900No. L.A. No. 602PublishedCited by 19 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

The plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained hy reason of the negligence of the defendant. At the close of the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the grounds that the plaintiff had shown no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, and that it appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff was himself guilty of contributory negligence. The motion was denied,-and testimony was thereupon given on behalf of the defendant, and upon its conclusion the jury rendered its verdict in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McCurrie v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Nichols v. . Sixth Avenue R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1868

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Osgood v. Los Angeles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Bice v. Harold L. Arnold, IncorporatedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  3. Graff v. United R.R. of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Kelly v. Santa Barbara Consolidated RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Waite v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942

14 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