Wessling v. Southern Pacific Co.

In addition to the errors noted in the foregoing decision (Civ. No. 7869, ante, p. 447 [3 Pac. (2d) 22]) the appellant in this case complains of the application to him of the rule of imputed negligence.

The facts upon which this defense rested are simple. This appellant and his deceased brother were ministers, the appellant located in the city of Lodi and the deceased in the city of Richmond. While appellant was a guest in his brother’s house the two prepared some tracts to be used at a forthcoming convention of Sunday school teachers. They left the brother’s house together, entered an…