Robinson

Robinson v. Smith-Booth-Usher Co.

Good Law
1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 578·32 Cal. App. 735·164 P. 29
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 1917Civ. No. 2198.California960 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

This is an action wherein the plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while employed by the defendant in its machine-shop; it being alleged that these injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant. The answer denied all negligence on the part of the defendant, and also pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and judgment was entered accordingly. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

. Appellant first insists that the evidence proved negligence on the part of the defendant and failed to prove contributory negligence of the plaintiff. There was a substantial conflict in the evidence upon these questions, and the evidence favorable to the defendant, if believed by the jury (as it was), is sufficient to support the verdict.

Appellant directs attention to certain instructions given by the court to the jury at the request of the defendant. It is claimed that by these instructions the jury was told that if the plaintiff was guilty of a want of ordinary care in the slightest degree contributing directly to his injury,…

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.