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