Legal Opinion
Smith v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 17, 1976No. Civ. 46557PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KAUS, P. J.
Plaintiff Margaret Smith appeals from a judgment after a court trial in favor of defendant Lucky Stores, Inc.
Facts
We rely chiefly on the statement of the undisputed facts in appellant’s brief.
Defendant Lucky Stores hired QRS Corporation, 1 as an independent contractor, to remove a sign from a store named “Ardens,” owned by defendant. The letters spelling out “Ardens,” were each about 6 feet high and 2Vi feet wide and weighed between 50 and 60 pounds.
Two QRS employees parked their truck with its crane and other sign moving equipment on the street by the curb directly in front…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Van Arsdale v. HollingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Maloney v. RathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Holman v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Widman v. Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1971
- Schmidlin v. Alta Planing Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
3Cited by6 opinions
- Koepke v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
- Lacount v. Hensel Phelps Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1978
- Salinero v. PonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- MacKey v. Campbell Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1980
- Caudel v. East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.