Olcese

Olcese v. Hardy

Good Law
1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 36·40 Cal. App. 323·180 P. 666
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 18, 1919Civ. No. 2745.California3,014 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Langdon, J.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff’s intestate, Louis Burger, against the defendant for dam ages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by Burger through the carelessness and negligence of the defendant while Burger was in the employ of the defendant. Burger having died on the twentieth day of July, 1915, the plaintiff above named, as administrator of his estate, was substituted as plaintiff. The defendant answered denying any carelessness or negligence and setting up as a separate defense that the accident and injury were due solely to the carelessness of Burger. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff and judgment was rendered thereon in the sum of $5,750, from which judgment the defendant appeals. Appellant contends that the judgment should be reversed on the grounds that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict and errors in law occurring at the trial.

The appellant argues at some length the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. He admits that the evidence of Burger given on his direct examination is sufficient to raise a conflict in the evidence and consequently to preclude this court from reviewing the evidence, but…

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.