Tower v. Humboldt Transit Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County, and from an order denying a new trial. George D. Murray, judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries. At the time of the occurrences in controversy, the plaintiff was a minor of the age of about sixteen years. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in her favor. The defendant appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
The defendant owns and operates a system of electric cars in the city of Eureka. The claim of the plaintiff was that on January 12, 1913, she was run over by one of defendant’s cars, sustaining injuries which required the amputation of her right arm and her right leg. The…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Judson v. Giant Powder Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- O'Connor v. MennieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Dixon v. PlunsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- McCurrie v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- Osgood v. Los Angeles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.California Supreme Court · 1952
- Herbert v. LankershimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Diamond v. WeyerhaeuserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Blanton v. CurryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Ross v. San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Railways Co.California Court of Appeal · 1920
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.