Legal Opinion

Buckner v. Vetterick

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 7, 1954No. Civ. 20104PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.

Plaintiffs, who are 15 months and 26 months old, brought this action by their guardian ad litem to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision between a Ford car in which they were riding and a truck. The Ford belonged to the defendant but was being driven with his consent by Mrs. Vetterick, who was killed in the accident. The mother of plaintiffs was also injured. The evidence indicates that Mrs. Vetterick was negligent in that she failed to make a boulevard stop. The complaint is based upon simple negligence, and properly so, for there is no suggestion in the evidence…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Crawford v. FosterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Kastel v. StieberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Hart v. HoganWashington Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Rocha v. HulenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  5. Farber v. OlkonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Horst Ex Rel. Horst v. HoltzenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1958
  2. Chancey v. CobbCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
  3. Lynott v. SellsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1958
  4. Welker, Adm. v. SorensonOregon Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Chabot v. MeredithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971

10 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