Gibson v. Easley
California Court of Appeal
1Dissent
SPENCE, J., Dissenting.
I dissent. The effect of the instructions given by the trial court at the request of respondents was to advise the jury that anyone who voluntarily drives an automobile at a speed prohibited by law is guilty of wilful misconduct within the meaning of the guest statute. There is no doubt that these instructions were erroneous. (Forsman v. Colton, 136 Cal. App. 97 [28 Pac. (2d) 429]; Olson v. Gay, 135 Cal. App. 726 [27 Pac. (2d) 922] ; Turner v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 134 Cal. App. 622 [25 Pac. (2d) 988] ; Walker v. Bacon, 132 Cal. App. 625 [23 Pac. (2d) 520];…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- White v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Starr v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Howard v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Turner v. Standard Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
- Hesler v. California Hospital Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.