Forwood v. Sutton
California Court of Appeal
1DissentGustafson, J.
I dissent.
The majority opinion quite correctly notes that the jury was not compelled to believe defendant when he said that he did not see plaintiff’s vehicle until he was only 100 to 130 feet away from it. But if the jury disbelieved defendant, this gives rise to no evidence as to when defendant actually saw plaintiff’s vehicle.
The majority opinion points out that plaintiff’s vehicle could have been seen by defendant 400 feet away and cites Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco (1957) 47 Cal.2d 729 [306 P.2d 432] for the proposition that “Evidence that the defendant could plainly have…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- People v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Estate of TeedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Brandelius v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Kaake v. LottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.