Legal Opinion

Raymer v. Vandenbergh

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 14, 1935No. Civ. 9796PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EDMONDS, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff brought this action for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident. The defendant denied that he was negligent. The court found that the collision between the automobiles in which the parties were driving was not caused by.any negligence, act or omission of the defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment subsequently entered and from the order denying a new trial.

The facts are undisputed. The accident happened on a rainy night. Appellant and respondent were each driving an automobile in opposite directions on a paved highway. Appellant was traveling…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Michener v. HuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Kahn v. Triest-Rosenberg Cap Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  3. In Re Estate of MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Musante v. GuerriniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Tucker v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Druzanich v. CrileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Ward v. SilveriaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  3. Renzetti v. Los Angeles Motor Coach Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API