Jensen v. Minard
California Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceCarter, J.
I concur in the judgment of reversal but I do not agree with the reasoning of the majority upon which its conclusion is based.
It is my considered opinion that the standard of care required of one who discharges firearms is so high that a person can only be excused from liability for injuries caused to others by a showing that he was absolutely without fault, and it was prejudicial error for the trial judge to refuse to instruct the jury accordingly.
In discussing the standard of care required in firearm cases under common law it is stated in Pollock’s Law of Torts, 15th edition (1951), page…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Rudd v. ByrnesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- In Re the Estate of De LaveagaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Morgan v. CoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Wright v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
- Bahel v. ManningMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.