Joseph C. Plyler v. Wheaton Van Lines, an Indiana Corporation and Raymond G. Hutton
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge:
Before California adopted the comparative negligence principle in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804, 119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226 (1975), the state rule was that a plaintiff’s contributory negligence did not bar or diminish recovery if the defendant was guilty of wanton and wilful misconduct. The sole question here is whether, under California law, the comparative negligence doctrine superseded the wanton and wilful misconduct rule. Our interpretation of California law is that the wanton and wilful misconduct rule was superseded, and that after Li v. Yellow Cab…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1975
- Daly v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Vandenbark v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Stoner v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Burke v. 12 Rothschild's Liquor Mart, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1992
- George E. Vanelli, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Reynolds School District No. 7, Defendants-Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Scott Davis, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee, Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, Defendant-Cross-Appellant, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Blazovic v. AndrichSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1991
- Allen v. SundeanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.