Bosqui v. Sutro R.R. Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion. Stanley, McKinstry, Bradley & McKinstry, and Smith & Murasky, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action for personal injury. The trial was by a jury, and plaintiff had the verdict. Defendant appeals from the j udgment and from an order denying its motion for a new trial. The injury was caused by one of defendant’s cars leaving the rails and colliding with another of its cars coming from an opposite direction.
1. It is contended by defendant that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict. Counsel argues the point upon the assumption either: 1. That the judgment can be sustained only on the theory that defendant failed to overcome the presumption of negligence arising…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Treadwell v. WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Judson v. Giant Powder Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Driscoll v. Market Street Cable RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Boyce v. California Stage Co.California Supreme Court · 1864
- McCurrie v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Basler v. Sacramento Gas & Elec. Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Cody v. Market St. Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
- Lejeune v. General Petroleum Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1932
- Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. McIntireSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Phoenix Assurance Co. v. Texas Holding Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.