Legal Opinion

Topley v. Zeeman

California Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 1932No. Docket No. S.F. 14533PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

— Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered for the defendants pursuant to a directed verdict. The action is one for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as the result of a fall in a bathtub in a hotel operated by the defendants.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff had been living at the hotel for several days and had used the bathtub many times prior to the accident. She testified that as she stepped into the tub on the night of the accident “the legs spread out from under the tub and my feet slipped, and I fell back on my back on the rim of the tub”. Plaintiff…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Estate of CasparCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Mairo v. Yellow Cab Co. of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. California Packing Corp. v. LopezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Bannister v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp.California Supreme Court · 1928

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gavin v. Protestant Episcopal BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Klim v. JonesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1970
  3. Kirby v. MoehlmanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1944
  4. Adams v. Dow HotelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  5. Miller v. Desilu Productions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API