Legal Opinion

Todd v. Cochell

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1860PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from the Ninth District. Verdict for defendants; judgment accordingly, and plaintiff appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.

Baldwin, J. and Field, C. J. concurring.

This is an action for injuries to a garden, occasioned by the breaking of a reservoir. On the trial of the case, the Court instructed the jury, that to entitle the plaintiff to recover, it must appear that the breaking of the reservoir resulted from the gross negligence of the defendants. This instruction, considered by itself, was no doubt erroneous; but the Court proceeded to explain what was meant by gross negligence in such a manner that the jury could not have been misled. They were told that the defendants must have taken the same care of their…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Losee v. . BuchananNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
  2. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. SandersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  3. Sutliff v. Sweetwater Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Moore v. San Vicente Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Curci v. Palo Verde Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API