Davis

Davis v. Brown

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 798·92 Cal. App. 20·267 P. 754
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 17, 1928Docket No. 3520.California4,110 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Plummer, J.

The plaintiffs had judgment for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff Nora Ellen Davis arising from an automobile collision between an automobile controlled and managed by the defendant, in which the said Nora Ellen Davis was riding, and a certain other automobile known as and called in the testimony the “Chevrolet.” The judgment also covered the costs and expenses incurred by the plaintiff George Davis. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

The complaint alleges and the answer admits that the defendant E. B. Brown during all the times mentioned in the complaint was doing business under the fictitious names of Brown’s Auto Tours and Brown’s Pierce Arrow Auto Tours; that the business so conducted was owned individually by the defendant. The complaint also alleges that on January 14, 1925, while the plaintiff Nora Ellen Davis was riding in an automobile as a guest of the defendant, and which automobile was owned and operated by him, northerly on North Broadway, and while traveling northerly through a certain tunnel known as the North Broadway tunnel, the defendant, through his agents and employees, so negligently operated the automobile in which plaintiff was riding that…

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.