Crane

Crane v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1859·218 Cal. App. 2d 855·32 Cal. Rptr. 754
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 2, 1963Civ. 6960California1,618 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brown, J.

Plaintiff Lorna Crane sued defendant Sears Roebuck & Co., Inc., (hereinafter called Sears) and defendant Universal Paint Corporation, (hereinafter called Universal) to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her when she was burned by fire.

Plaintiff complained in two causes of action against each defendant, one based upon negligence and the other upon breach of warranty of suitability and fitness for purposes intended.

After the parties had rested and the defendants’ motions for directed verdicts were denied a jury verdict favoring plaintiff against both defendants was returned, judgment was entered accordingly and defendants appeal from said judgment and an order denying their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In defendants’ briefs only Universal and not Sears urges error of the trial court in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Plaintiff and her husband were starting a restaurant business. They desired to paint the interior of the premises and went to a Sears store in San Diego to obtain some paint. The Sears salesman prevailed upon plaintiff and her husband to buy a surface preparer. The surface preparer was made by…

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.