Ensign

Ensign v. Southern Pacific Co.

Good Law
1924 Cal. LEXIS 304·193 Cal. 311·223 P. 953
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 16, 1924S. F. No. 10254.California4,031 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lennon, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant, Southern Pacific Company, from a judgment rendered against it in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars and in favor of the plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Peter Carmine, deceased, as damages for the death of said deceased resulting from an injury alleged to have been suffered by the deceased as the result of the negligence of the defendant. The main contention urged in support of a reversal is that it was not shown that the injury to the deceased was the proximate cause of his death. It is argued in this behalf that the verdict of the jury, with its implied finding that the death of the deceased proximately resulted from the injury caused by defendant, rested, not upon the firm foundation of satisfactory evidence, but rather upon conjecture, surmise, and speculation.

It is plaintiff’s claim that, while the deceased’s death did not immediately follow the infliction of the injury, nevertheless, the injury was the initial step in a chain of causation which resulted finally and as a natural consequence in the death of the deceased. And while there are several distinct steps in the claimed chain of causation, and while the death occurred…

Concurring Opinion

Myers, J.

I concur in the judgment and with what is said in the opinion of Mr. Justice Lennon herein, except that, I am inclined to the opinion that the evidence herein is insufficient to support the implied finding of the jury that the death of the decedent proximately resulted from the original injury complained of.

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.