Meyer

Meyer v. City and County of San Francisco

Good Law
1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1326·9 Cal. App. 2d 361·49 P.2d 893
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 7, 1935Civ. 9541California770 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

On the twenty-third day of June, 1931, the plaintiff, a minor thirteen years of age, was riding on a miniature train which was being operated by the defendant in the “Fleishhacker Playground”, one of the public parks of San Francisco. He fell off one of the cars and was injured. For the injuries so suffered he brought this action and it was tried by the court sitting with a jury. When the plaintiff rested the defendant made a motion for a nonsuit, its motion was denied and it proceeded to introduce its evidence. After all of the evidence had been introduced the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict and that motion was denied. Later counsel made their arguments, the court instructed the jury, and the cause was submitted. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Before the verdict was entered counsel for defendant made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and at the same time- asked that the defendant be allowed to move for a new trial if its motion for judgment be denied. That motion was denied and, from the order denying it, the defendant has appealed.

The plaintiff did not introduce evidence showing the train or any part thereof was “dangerous…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.