Peters v. Bowman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court; of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. A. A. Sanderson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
This action was brought by plaintiff to recover damages for the death of his infant son, who was drowned in a pond of water upon a lot of land owned by the defendant, Bowman. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The facts are practically undisputed, and may be stated briefly: Defendant owned the lot in question and resided on it for several years prior to 1889. It was part of what is known as Ashbury Heights, in San Francisco. The land sloped toward the west, and on the westerly side…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hargreaves v. DeaconMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Bransom's adm'r v. LabrotCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1884
- Barrett v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
- Schmidt v. BauerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Klix v. NiemanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by138 opinions
- Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1996
- City of Shawnee v. CheekSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Co. v. BeaversSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Harper v. City of TopekaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1914
- San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co. v. MorganTexas Supreme Court · 1898
133 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.