McGregor

McGregor v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Good Law
107 F. Supp. 918·1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3910
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 21, 1952Civ. No. 13952-PHCalifornia754 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Yankwich, J.

The above-entitled cause heretofore tried, argued and submitted, is now decided as follows:

Judgment will be for the defendant, that the plaintiff take nothing by her complaint.. Costs to the defendant.

Findings and judgment to be ¡prepared by counsel for the defendant under local rule 7..

Comment

The plaintiff has failed to prove that the accident which resulted in the injury of which she complains, was the result of any negligent act on the part of the defendant. Brown v. Holzwasser, Inc., 1930, 108 Cal.App. 483, 487-488 , 291 P. 661 ; Hodge v. Weinstock, Lubin & Co., 1930, 109 Cal.App. 393 , 293 P. 80 ; Tuttle v. Crawford, 1936, 8 Cal.2d 126 , 63 P.2d 1128 ; Girvetz v. Boys’ Market, Inc., 1949, 91 Cal.App. 2d 827 , 206 P.2d 6 ; Harpke v. Lankershim Estates, 1951, 103 Cal.App.2d 143 , 229 P.2d 103 ; Owen v. Beauchamp, 1944, 66 Cal.App.2d 750 , 152 P.2d 756 .

The testimony of the plaintiff was that she had entered the store of the defendant on January 12, 1952. It was raining and she proceeded east from the door through which she entered, down to the central aisle, which runs north and south, then she turned right down the central aisle towards the escalator. The distance…

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.