Hollander

Smith v. Hollander

Good Law
1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 483·85 Cal. App. 535·259 P. 958
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 22, 1927Docket No. 5797.California1,762 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Koford, J.

Appellant, Hattie Hollander, appeals from a judgment awarding damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in being struck by said appellant’s automobile. Her co-defendant, Arthur Hollander, was granted a nonsuit.

The proof offered by the plaintiff was as follows: While walking westerly on the south sidewalk of Post Street, plaintiff was struck and injured by appellant’s automobile; which ran on to the sidewalk unawares from behind him. He did not see it approach nor hear any horn or warning signal. The only eye-witness 'for the plaintiff testified:

Plaintiff’s wife testified to a telephone conversation with appellant in which the latter said that she had lost control of her machine from Van Ness Avenue to Buchanan Street. This was all the testimony offered by plaintiff in chief concerning the manner of the accident. A motion for a nonsuit by appellant was denied. Apart from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the evidence warranted the submission of the case to the jury upon the question of whether defendant was negligent in not giving a suitable warning signal.

Defendant Arthur Hollander testified on behalf of appellant and himself that a misty rain…

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.