Legal Opinion

Hanson v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 23, 1944No. Civ. 14344PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.

From a judgment in the sum of $2,500 after trial before a jury in an action to recover damages for the negligent acts of defendant in burning weeds on lots adjacent to plaintiff’s property, defendant appeals.

The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff (respondent), the essential facts are:

On June 9, 1941, defendant, through its duly authorized agents, while burning weeds for the purpose of abating a nuisance on a lot adjacent to a piece of real property owned by plaintiff, negligently permitted the fire to spread and destroy plaintiff’s property.

This is the sole…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Pittam v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  2. Miller v. City of Palo AltoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Brindamour v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. In Re PedrosianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Bertiz v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Osborn v. City of WhittierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. Shipley v. City of Arroyo GrandeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Durst v. County of ColusaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. McNeil v. City of MontagueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Barrett v. City of San JoseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API