Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gibson v. Southern Pacific Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 30, 1955No. Civ. 16295Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPeters, P. J.

I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that holds that the trial court properly entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the theory that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. That issue, in my opinion, was clearly one of fact and not of law. I agree with all other portions of the majority opinion.

*356The basic fallacy in the majority opinion is that it discusses the facts and law relating to the issue of contributory negligence of the plaintiff as if they were unrelated to the facts and law relating to the duty owed by defendant to plaintiff.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cameron v. City of GilroyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. McKeown v. Northwestern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API