Legal Opinion

Piercy v. Zeiss

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 2, 1935No. Civ. 1182PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.

This is an action for damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a collision between an automobile driven by the defendant Schaefer, in which she was riding, and another car driven by the defendant Zeiss. The defendant Schaefer, a life insurance agent, had attempted or was attempting to sell the plaintiff an annuity policy and the accident occurred while he was taking her to her home from her place of employment. The court found that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant Schaefer and that the plaintiff was riding in his car as a passenger and not as a guest. The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Crawford v. FosterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Haney v. TakakuraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  3. Sumner v. EdmundsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  4. Sullivan v. RichardsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. McCann v. HoffmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Malloy v. FongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Gillespie v. RawlingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Gillespie v. RawlingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Whitechat v. GuyetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942

16 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