Legal Opinion

Piacun v. Hexem

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 15, 1936No. Civ. 10047PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKnight, J.

While walking across a street in Oakland, plaintiff was struck and injured by an automobile driven by the defendant Roy Osborn. Claiming that his injuries were proximately caused by Osborn’s negligence, he brought this action for damages against Osborn in which he joined as party defendant Andrew Hexem, alleging that Hexem was the owner of the automobile and that it was being driven by Osborn with Hexem’s permission. The defendants filed a joint answer denying that the automobile was negligently operated, or that Hexem was the owner thereof; and by way of special defense they pleaded that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Parke v. FranciscusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Bunch v. KinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  3. Swing v. LingoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Weinberg v. WhiteboneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  2. Irvine v. WilsonAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1955
  3. Woods v. EastridgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  4. Burdine v. Severin Motors, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Irvine v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

4 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