Legal Opinion

Denver Consolidated Tramway Co. v. Rush

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided September 15, 1903No. 2207PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of Arapahoe County.

1Opinion of the CourtGunter, J.

Seven errors are assigned. Bnt two are discussed by appellant’s counsel, and to these we confine the opinion.

1. Appellant .(defendant) tendered an instruction which was refused. -It says the instruction in substance charged that if appellee (plaintiff) was not injured, she could not recover. Assuming this, the instruction was given in substance in instructions two and three, wherein the sustaining of an injury through the accident was made essential to recovery.

2. It is further urged that the evidence is insuff ficient to justify the verdict.

The evidence for appellee (plaintiff) is,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Smith v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
  2. McCurrie v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Denver Consolidated Electric Co. v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1903
  4. Osgood v. Los Angeles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Wall v. LivezaySupreme Court of Colorado · 1882

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Carolyn S. Volis v. Puritan Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1977
  2. Carolyn S. Volis v. Puritan Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API