Legal Opinion

Bispham v. Mahoney

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided January 13, 1936No. 65PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Layton, C. J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

The defendant contends that the statute is in derogation of the common law, and must be strictly construed; and that so construed, no liability can attach to a mother signing an application for an operator’s license to a minor under 18 years, if the father is living and has custody of the minor.

The statute in question imposes a liability for negligence where no liability existed at common law, and, undoubtedly, is in derogation thereof, but the result contended for by the defendant does not necessarily follow. For, even under the rule of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Buelke v. LevenstadtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Pontius v. McLainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Sgheiza v. JakoberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Alfieri v. MartelliSupreme Court of Delaware · 1994
  2. Bilsten v. PorterColorado Court of Appeals · 1973
  3. McGeehan v. SchiavelloSupreme Court of Delaware · 1970
  4. Tatlock v. NathansonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1959
  5. Faulkner v. MarcozziSuperior Court of Delaware · 1936

1 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