Legal Opinion

Kimiko Toma v. Utah Power & Light Company

Utah Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 1961No. 9402PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NELSON, District Judge.

In this action, the plaintiff, as adminis-tratrix of the Estate of Fred R. Shook, Jr., deceased, seeks judgment against the defendant for the death of the said decedent, alleging he was killed because of the negligence of the defendant.

The burden of proving negligence is on the plaintiff. The lower court held, by its judgment for directed verdict, that the plaintiff had failed to produce evidence sufficient to discharge this burden.

On appeal from a directed verdict we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party.1 This, however, does not mean…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Polk v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Hayes v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Godfrey v. VinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  4. Houston Lighting & Power Company v. BrooksTexas Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Lemos v. MaddenWyoming Supreme Court · 1921

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Williams v. MelbyUtah Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Smith v. Alfred Brown CompanyUtah Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Godesky v. Provo City Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Hall v. BlackhamUtah Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Massey v. Utah Power & LightUtah Supreme Court · 1980

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API