Lafrenz v. Stoddard
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
DOOLING, J. pro tem.
Plaintiffs Henry Lafrenz and Bita Lafrenz, his wife, after a jury trial recovered judgment for personal injuries of $7,500 and $21,600 respectively. We cannpt agree with appellant that the question of his negligence was a close one on the evidence or that the verdicts appeared to be excessive.
Eespondents were crossing Harrison Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets in San Francisco in a legally established crosswalk at the intersection of Langton Street with Harrison. Before stepping off the curb they looked to their left toward Seventh Street, saw no vehicles…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Mudrick v. Market Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1938
- Prentis v. BatesMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- McPhee v. LavinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Brown v. YocumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Elmore v. County of LassenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Gray v. BrinkerhoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Turner v. MannonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Figlia v. WisnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Hawke v. BurnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Figlia v. WisnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.