Legal Opinion
Vaerst v. Tanzman
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 21, 1990No. A047329PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ANDERSON, P. J.
Plaintiff Sarah T. Vaerst (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict denying recovery in a personal injury action.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The action herein grew out of a slip-and-fall accident in a family dwelling located at 4211 Highview Drive, San Mateo, California. The residence was owned by Arnold Tanzman (respondent) and was leased to Mr. Anderson and Miss Hanson, friends of Ralph and Bodil Vaerst, appellant’s son and daughter-in-law. The accident occurred on April 18, 1987, when the Vaersts were invited by the tenants for dinner and…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
- Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
- Alarid v. VanierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Price v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1970
- Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1978
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Peterson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Kennedy v. Southern California Edison Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Joe Kennedy v. Southern California Edison CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Vaerst v. TanzmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990