Legal Opinion

Hare v. Canfield

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 20, 1929No. Docket No. 6261PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCraig, Acting P. J.

The respondent was injured by appellant’s automobile while attempting to walk across a public street in the city of Los Angeles, and this is an appeal from a judgment rendered in her favor, holding that appellant was negligent, and rejecting a plea of contributory negligence.

Appellant concedes that the determination of the question here presented must be governed by the evidence given on behalf of the respondent. It is also agreed that respondent walked from her automobile on the westerly side of Glendale Boulevard, to the safety zone, on the easterly side thereof, and that appellant was…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Power v. Crown Stage Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
  2. Lord v. StacyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  3. Minor v. FooteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Northwest States Utilities Co. v. AshtonWyoming Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Cordi v. GarciaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API