Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 16 of 16
Full-Text Articles in Law
Eads V. Marks, Jesse W. Carter
Eads V. Marks, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Family that alleged injury to minor was caused by dairy's breach of agreement to place milk bottles only in family's refrigerator, out of reach of the minor, should have been allowed to amend their complaint to state a cause of action in tort.
Ward V. Jones [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Ward V. Jones [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The dismissal, after a general demurrer was sustained, of a plaintiff's action for wrongful death was proper where the plaintiff failed to present a verified claim for damages in writing and file the claim with the clerk of the municipality.
Flores V. Brown [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Flores V. Brown [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Damages for wrongful death were the sum of those suffered by each heir or parent and when the heirs were not husband and wife, the negligence of one was not imputed to the others.
Hamasaki V. Flotho [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Hamasaki V. Flotho [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The trial court was not required to order a new trial on damage issues alone where damages awarded in a personal injury suit against a driver, the car's owner, and the driver's employer were so low that the jury had clearly compromised on liability.
Cary V. Wentzel [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Cary V. Wentzel [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where a jury verdict was the result of compromise, there had been no acceptable determination of liability, the driver was entitled to a new trial on that issue, and an order limiting a new trial to the issue of damages was an abuse of discretion.
Leipert V. Honold [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Leipert V. Honold [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Partial new trial on damages was improperly ordered as issue of liability was very close and record evidence suggested that award was the result of a compromise, and thus, it would have been unjust to have a new trial limited to issue of damages.
Rose V. Melody Lane Of Wilshire [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Rose V. Melody Lane Of Wilshire [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Grant of a new trial in favor of a customer on issue of damages, in his action to recover for personal injuries sustained in the owner's establishment, was improper. The nominal award by the jury indicated indecision as to owner's res ipsa liability.
Norris V. Pacific Indem. Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Norris V. Pacific Indem. Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where a permittee had neither express nor implied permission for the delegation of the use of the car to another, the driver was not protected by an omnibus clause covering permittees and was therefore not entitled to coverage under the policy.
Scott V. Burke [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Scott V. Burke [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
It was proper for the trial court to instruct the jury on the inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur as well as the conflicting presumption of due care that arose if defendant driver was truly unable to recall the cause of the accident.
Rodabaugh V. Tekus [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Rodabaugh V. Tekus [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The doctrine of last clear chance rarely applied in cases involving high speed collisions between vehicles because it was extremely difficult to determine which party, if any, had a meaningful last clear chance to avoid an accident.
Sexton V. Brooks [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Sexton V. Brooks [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
In plaintiff's action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained through a fall on a cement walk, the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the applicable rules of law, therefore, judgment for plaintiff was improper.
State Compensation Ins. Fund V. Industrial Acci. Com., Jesse W. Carter
State Compensation Ins. Fund V. Industrial Acci. Com., Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An employee who was the aggressor in a fight with his superior during the course of his employment was entitled to recover under workmen's compensation law; fault, serious and wilful misconduct, and contributory negligence did not bar recovery.
Conner V. Southern Pacific Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Conner V. Southern Pacific Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Parents of a son's killed in a collision with a train were not entitled to a new trial in their action against corporations, who owned the train, where there was no evidence that jury instructions regarding the son's negligence were erroneous.
Stang V. Mill Valley [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Stang V. Mill Valley [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Because the city and its officials owed to the homeowners no specific duty to maintain the waterways to a fire hydrant, the homeowners had no claim against the city and its officials arising from the blaze that destroyed the homeowners' dwelling.
Nichols V. Mccoy [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Nichols V. Mccoy [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Plaintiff's argument that it was error to allow toxicologist to testify to the contents of an official record was without merit because there was no objection to the testimony at trial; hence, on appeal it was too late to challenge the admission.
Spaulding V. Cameron [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Spaulding V. Cameron [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Award for the immediate harm to a property owner's home was valid, but it was not possible to award both damages for permanent future injury and injunctive relief to correct the situation to prevent such future injury.