Winston

Winston v. Hansell

Good Law
160 Cal. App. 2d 570·1958 Cal. App. LEXIS 2155·325 P.2d 569·88 A.L.R. 2d 326
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 19, 1958Civ. 17707California2,019 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peters, J.

Plaintiff, Flossie Winston, in a second amended complaint, attempted to state a cause of action against the city of San Francisco and against Rose Hansell for damages for personal injuries sustained by her when she fell on the public sidewalk in front of the Hansell property. The complaint purports to state two causes of action, the first against the city, and the second apparently against Rose Hansell as the owner of the abutting property. The cause of action against the city is not involved on this appeal. Eose Hansell demurred generally to the second cause of action. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and entered its judgment of dismissal in favor of Eose Han-sell. Flossie Winston appeals.

The second amended complaint as to respondent avers that respondent owns and occupies the property adjoining the sidewalk where she fell; that 1 ‘ at all times herein mentioned there was and now is a sidewalk in front of said premises for the general public to walk upon, and that defendants ... did make special use of said sidewalk in that said sidewalk was used as a driveway for automobiles”; that on June 9, 1956, “as a direct and proximate result of the carelessness…

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.