Legal Opinion
Twohig v. Briner
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 5, 1985No. Civ. No. 31012PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WORK, Acting P. J .
Candace Twohig appeals a summary judgment in favor of Janet Briner on her complaint for personal injuries incurred while a passenger in a car from which the seat belts had been removed, The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis Briner, the driver and owner of the automobile, as a matter of law on these facts owed no duty to provide seat belts to her passengers. We conclude the trial court did err in granting summary judgment, because there exists a triable issue of fact regarding whether Briner breached her duty to…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Service Bureau, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1971
- Spier v. BarkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Bigbee v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1983
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Lopez v. McDonald's Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1987
- Waterson v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
- Comer v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
- Tollefson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- General Motors Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.