Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dziura v. California Aviation Service, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 6, 1970No. Civ. 25252Published

1DissentChristian, J.

I dissent.

It is true that the instruction'on willful misconduct delivered by the court was defective in failing to state that contributory negligence is not generally a defense to a claim based upon willful misconduct. (Williams v. Carr (1968) 68 Cal.2d 579 [68 Cal.Rptr. 305, 440 P.2d 505].) But in my view *203the failure correctly to explain the effect of willful misconduct was not prejudicial where the evidence would not have supported a verdict on that theory. Wanton or willful misconduct “implies the intentional doing of something either with knowledge, express or implied, that serious injury…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Williams v. CarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Palazzi v. Air Cargo Terminals, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1966
  3. Lovett v. HitchcockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  4. Davis v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API