Legal Opinion

Bagwill v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 14, 1928No. Docket No. 6276PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, J., pro tem.

These actions arose out of the same state of facts as will hereinafter appear. By order of court and stipulation of counsel the actions were consolidated for trial.

The plaintiff Bagwill in the first action was the employee of Consolidated Lumber Company, plaintiff in the second action. While employed as a truck driver and while operating the truck of the Consolidated Lumber Company the plaintiff Bagwill collided with a train of cars owned and operated by defendant Pacific Electric Railway Company, and out of this collision the two actions arose. Bagwill sued for damages…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Palmer v. TschudyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Young v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Wallis v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Young v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  5. New York Lubricating Oil Co. v. United Railroads of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Rodabaugh v. TekusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Dalley v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  3. Johnson v. Sacramento Northern RailwayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Gillette v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  5. Everest v. RieckenWashington Supreme Court · 1948

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

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

Powered by the Exa API