Legal Opinion

Gnes a v. City & County of San Francisco

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 16, 1940No. Civ. No. 11352PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment awarding plaintiff damages for personal injuries. The case was tried before a jury, and the verdict rests upon a state of facts which are not in material dispute. At the time of her injuries, the plaintiff was attempting to cross Market Street *641at about 9 o’clock P. M. at the intersection of Market and Van Ness. Market Street at this point has four sets of street car tracks, two eastbound and two westbound. The intersection is unusually wide, and, for the protection of traffic, crosswalks are maintained for the benefit of pedestrians, and two concrete…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McQuigg v. ChildsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Flynn v. FlynnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Gore v. Market Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Anderson v. Market Street Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
  5. Kuhn v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kirk v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Rembold v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  3. Amendt v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API