Robinson v. Pioche, Bayerque & Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. Action for damages sustained by the plaintiff in falling into an uncovered hole, dug in the sidewalk in front of defendants' premises. The Court below gave the following instructions to the jury: Third—“ If the plaintiff’s negligence in any manner contributed to his injury, he cannot recover.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. Action for damages sustained by the plaintiff in falling into an uncovered hole, dug in the sidewalk in front of defendants' premises. The Court below gave the following instructions to the jury: Third—“ If the plaintiff’s negligence in any manner contributed to his injury, he cannot recover.” Fourth—“If at the time of the accident the plaintiff was intoxicated from the use of ardent spirits, and that was one of the causes which caused the accident, the plaintiff cannot recover.” Fifth—“ Drunkenness at the time of the accident on…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, J.
Murray, C. J., concurred.
The Court below erred in giving the third, fourth and fifth instructions. If the defendants were at fault in leaving an uncovered hole in the sidewalk of a public street, the intoxication of the plaintiff cannot excuse such gross negligence. A drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street, as a sober one, and much more in need of it.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
2Cited by22 opinions
- Ramsey v. AnctilSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1965
- Slaubaugh v. SlaubaughNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
- Ordway v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- South Carolina Railroad v. NixSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
- Cooper v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1975
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.