Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco
California Supreme Court
1DissentCarter, J.
I dissent.
Applying a finespun, hairsplitting technical construction to a jury instruction on the last clear chance doctrine is just as destructive of that doctrine as the refusal to submit a case to the jury on the last clear chance theory where the facts warrant such submission (see Rodabaugh v. Tekus, 39 Cal.2d 290 [246 P.2d 663] ; Doran v. City & County of San Francisco, 44 Cal.2d 477 [283 P.2d 1]). Although I tried many cases, including Gridner v. Union Oil Co., 216 Cal. 197 [13 P.2d 915], involving the last clear chance doctrine, I am more confused, after reading the majority opinion,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Girdner v. Union Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1932
- Daniels v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Mazzotta v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Popejoy v. HannonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Parker v. WomackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.