Holman v. Viko
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtAshburn, J.
Appeals from judgments for defendant in two companion personal injury actions. The cases were tried together before a jury and plaintiffs base their appeals upon alleged errors in instructions. Counsel claim error (1) in instructing the jury that violation of section 80.39 of Los Angeles Municipal Code would constitute negligence per se, and (2) in refusing to give an instruction on the last clear chance doctrine. We have concluded that there was reversible error in the instruction based upon the municipal ordinance, but no error in refusal of a last clear chance instruction.
The accident…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Buckley v. ChadwickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Brandelius v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Girdner v. Union Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1932
- Hatzakorzian v. Rucker-Fuller Desk Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Rumford v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- City of Lafayette v. County of Contra CostaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Ackerman Ex Rel. Ackerman v. JamesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1972
- People v. MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Wooldridge v. MountsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.