Barry v. Terkildsen
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated In the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
— Plaintiff, a girl about nineteen years old, started somewhat in a hurry from her father’s house, about nine o’clock in the morning of October 11, 1880, to go to school. Appellant owned the adjoining premises, and in the sidewalk in front of said premises there was a hole covered by a wooden trap-door, which appellant used for his private convenience. This hole was only a few feet from the entrance to the residence of plaintiff’s father. On the morning above referred to this hole was opened, and entirely unguarded and unprotected. As plaintiff went out of the house her attention was…
2Cited by29 opinions
- Norton v. City of PomonaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Peters v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Shippers Compress & Warehouse Co. v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1904
- Stockton Automobile Co. v. ConferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Lussier v. San Lorenzo Valley Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.