Raynale v. Yellow Cab Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J., pro tem.
Admitting that its negligence caused the accident which resulted in injury to plaintiff, the defendant corporation seeks to escape the $3,000 judgment entered against it because of a $25 release which it secured from the plaintiff within an hour and a quarter after the accident. There is the expected conflict in the evidence, but the jury’s acceptance of the plaintiff’s version of the facts establishes them for the purposes of this appeal. Her testimony was that she had no more than returned home after the accident, when defendant’s representatives called; she had just…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Smith v. Occidental & Oriental Steamship Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Meyer v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Johnson v. PearsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Mairo v. Yellow Cab Co. of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Baird v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Tunkl v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Casey v. ProctorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Miller v. McLaglenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Jordan v. GuerraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Vicente L. Morta Fhp, Inc. v. Korea Insurance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.