Maupin v. Widling
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, J.
Here we hold that the court erred in giving BAJI No. 3.75 (7th ed. 1986) * in conjunction with BAJI No. 3.79. The jury was likely confused by the use of two different but alternate tests for establishing cause in fact in a negligence action. We therefore reverse the judgment.
Facts
The defendant Alan Widling was driving along State Street in Santa Barbara on the way back to high school after having lunch. Ahead of Widling by about 20 yards and approaching an intersection was the car driven by Mildred Carlson. Ahead of Carlson, partly protruding from the extreme left turning…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Weirum v. RKO General, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1975
- Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Mosley v. Arden Farms Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Smith v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Henderson v. Harnischfeger Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Corales v. BennettCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Mitchell v. GonzalesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Osborn v. Irwin Memorial Blood BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- People v. JenningsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Jackson v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1993
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.