Chauvin v. Krupin
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
SHINN, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff recovered judgment against defendants Krupin, proprietors of a beauty parlor, on account of a burn inflicted upon her scalp while she was receiving a so-called beauty treatment known as a permanent wave. Defendants appeal and urge as the sole ground for reversal of the judgment that the specific allegations of negligence charged in the complaint were not proved, and that plaintiff was erroneously allowed to recover under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, after an amendment of the complaint made at the time of a motion for nonsuit. In discussing this point it will…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Marovich v. Central California Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1923
- Connor v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
- Atkinson v. United Railroads of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Lippert v. Pacific Sugar CorporationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
- Jianou v. Pickwick Stages SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
3Cited by13 opinions
- Leet v. Union Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Pearson v. ButtsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1937
- Gish v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Supreme Court · 1939
- Price v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Scott v. JamesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.