Selinsky v. Olsen
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCarter, J.
A motion for a new trial after judgment for defendant on the ground of refusal to give an instruction on the last clear chance doctrine was granted to plaintiff and defendant appeals.
We must view the evidence most favorable to the contention that the doctrine is applicable in reviewing the order appealed from, since plaintiff is entitled to an instruction thereon if the evidence so viewed could establish the elements of the doctrine. (Bonebrake v. McCormick, 35 Cal.2d 16 [215 P.2d 728] ; Alberding v. Pritchard, 97 Cal.App.2d 443 [217 P.2d 1012] ; 19 Cal.Jur. 745.)
Plaintiff’s car was parked…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Girdner v. Union Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1932
- Bonebrake v. McCormickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Hoy v. TornichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Huetter v. AndrewsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Handley v. LombardiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Brandelius v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Daniels v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Rodabaugh v. TekusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Sills v. Los Angeles Transit LinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Alvarez v. Felker Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1964
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.