Legal Opinion

Hammer v. Boring

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 20, 1936No. Civ. No. 10066PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

JAMISON, J., pro tem.

This action was brought by plaintiff against defendant to recover damages for injuries suffered when struck by defendant’s automobile. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff; defendant moved for a new trial, and his motion being denied, he prosecutes this appeal.

Appellant urges three grounds for reversal: That the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict; that the evidence fails to show negligence on the part of appellant; and contributory negligence on the part of the respondent.

There is an irreconcilable conflict of the evidence in this case. The accident…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wilbur v. WilburCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Ching Wing v. KishiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  3. Fike v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1925
  4. Grant v. RyonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hupfeld v. WadleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API