Bulow

Bulow v. Dawn Patrol

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 2074·216 Cal. App. 2d 721·31 Cal. Rptr. 132
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 29, 1963Civ. 26762California3,930 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wood, J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from an attack by a dog which was owned by a guard-patrolman, who was employed by defendant Dawn Patrol.

In a jury trial, the verdict was for plaintiff for $15,000, and for the intervener (compensation insurance carrier for plaintiff's employer) for $7,986.27. Defendant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial were granted. In the order granting a new trial (on the ground of error in instructing the jury), it was stated that the order would be effective only if the judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed.

Plaintiff and the intervener appeal from the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and from the order granting a new trial, and they contend that the court erred in granting the motions.

Plaintiff Bulow, aged 53 years, had been an employee of General Controls Company about five years. That company, which manufactured aircraft equipment, occupied a fence-enclosed area of several acres in Burbank. Defendant Dawn Patrol, pursuant to a contract with General Controls, was furnishing guard and patrol services for the protection of that plant. The guards were stationed at guard shacks…

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.