Legal Opinion

Riggs v. City & County of San Francisco

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 3, 1956No. Civ. No. 17094Published

1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.

Plaintiff's appeal from an adverse judgment upon a jury verdict raises the sole question of whether the giving of a certain erroneous instruction was prejudicial.

The Instruction

“If you find that the plaintiff was not a passenger at the time that she suffered her alleged fall, then the defendant *482did not owe any duty to the plaintiff, and hence your verdict must be for the defendant, City and County of San Francisco. ’ ’

Obviously, the instruction was erroneous. (Defendant does not contend otherwise. ) Public carriers owe to intending passengers and to the public generally a duty to exercise…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Connor v. Pacific Greyhound LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. Riley v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  3. Reilly v. California Street Cable RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  4. Sipperly v. San Diego Yellow Cabs, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API