Howland

Howland v. Oakland Consolidated Street Railway Co.

Good Law
115 Cal. 487·1896 Cal. LEXIS 1037·47 P. 255
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 31, 1896S. F. No. 468California2,073 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fleet, J.

The action was to recover damages resulting to plaintiff from loss of the aid and services of his wife, and the comfort of her society, and incidental medical expenses incurred, by reason of personal injuries suffered by the wife through the negligence of the defendants.

Plaintiff had judgment against both defendants, and the Oakland Consolidated Street Railway Company appeals therefrom and from an order denying its motion for a new trial, assigning as erroneous certain rulings in the admission of evidence and in the giving of an instruction, and that the damages are excessive. Several of these rulings we regard as so obviously and prejudicially erroneous as to demand a new trial.

1. The injuries were the result of a collision between an electric motor car, in charge of the servants of appellant, and a horse-car of its codefendant, at a point where their roads cross—the wife, a passenger on the car of appellant, being thrown therefrom by the shock and hurt.

One of the controverted questions in the case, growing out of the issue of appellant’s negligence, was as to the condition of its ear at the time of the accident—the claim of the plaintiff being that it had negligently…

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.