Laird v. T. W. Mather, Inc.
California Supreme Court
1Dissent
CARTER, J., Dissenting.
I concur in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Shenk but feel that the problem involved deserves further discussion.
Even assuming that instructing the jury on the presumption of due care was error in this case, it was clearly not prejudicial.
The challenged instruction reads: “At the outset of this trial, each party was entitled to the presumption of law that every person takes ordinary care of his own concerns and that he obeys the law. These presumptions are a form of prima facie evidence and will support findings in accordance therewith, in…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Smellie v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1931
- Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Westberg v. WilldeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Scott v. BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.