Legal Opinion

Lissak v. Crocker Estate Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1897No. S. F. No. 589PublishedCited by 29 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. S. K. Dougherty, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict against the defendant for personal injuries sustained by the fall of an elevator in which he was at the time a passenger. From the judgment thereon and an order denying a new trial the defendant has appealed. It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant operated and controlled the elevator, and that the same was wholly under its management and control, and was maintained by it for the purpose of carrying passengers to and from the different floors of the defendant’s building; that at the time the injury occurred the plaintiff entered it to be thus…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Smith v. WesterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Hoyt v. . HoytNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  3. Beasley v. San José Fruit-Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Richstain v. Washington Mills Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. City & County of San Francisco v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. People v. PerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Salmon v. RathjensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Darling v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Estate of GleasonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913

24 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