Lininger v. San Francisco, Vallejo & Napa Valley Railroad
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Napa County. Henry C. Gesford, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The action was for damages for personal injuries as the result of a collision between one of defendant’s electric cars and an automobile in which plaintiff was riding as a guest.
Certain portions of the complaint were stricken out, on motion of defendant, and a nonsuit was granted at the close of plaintiff’s evidence. The complaint was constructed upon the theory that section 486 of the Civil Code applies to electric cars, and the ruling of the court upon the motion to strike out involved that consideration. The section was enacted in 1872 and provides that “A bell, of at least twenty pounds…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Little v. HackettSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- In Re the Estate of ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Merrill v. Los Angeles Gas Elec. Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Tompkins v. Clay St. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1884
- City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Peri v. L.A. Junction Ry.California Supreme Court · 1943
- Carroll v. Central Counties Gas Co.California Court of Appeal · 1925
- Tannehill v. Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1919
- Springer v. Pacific Fruit ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Ellis v. Central California Traction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.