Bolles

Bolles v. Hilton & Paley, Inc.

Good Law
119 Cal. App. 126·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 106·6 P.2d 335
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 10, 1931Docket No. 6892.California671 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

The defendants conducted a store in a building fronting on Third Street in Santa Monica. Plaintiff, while walking along the public sidewalk in front of said store, slipped upon some wet paper and rubbish and fell, thereby causing the injuries of which she complains. The wet condition of the sidewalk was caused by water dripping from a faucet affixed to the store building. The faucet was located six inches from the dividing line between the store of defendants and adjoining premises. The water, however, came from a pipe-line from the adjoining premises and not from defendants’ store. There is no evidence that defendants had anything to do with the adjoining premises, or that they were owners of the building. At the trial, on the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendants moved for a nonsuit on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants. The court thereupon, and upon the same ground, granted the motion for nonsuit, and judgment was entered accordingly. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

“ At common law, no duty was cast upon the owner of the abutting property to maintain the street in good repair. If such duty exists in this…

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.