Ching Wing v. Southern Pacific Co.

California Supreme Court

Ching Wing v. Southern Pacific Co.

181 Cal. 468

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 25, 1919

DocketL. A. No. 5274

StatusPublished

This text of 181 Cal. 468 (Ching Wing v. Southern Pacific Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ching Wing v. Southern Pacific Co., 181 Cal. 468 (Cal. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, J.

This is an action for damages for the death of decedent, Wong On King, alleged to have been caused by the [469]*469conduct of the defendant in negligently propelling its engine along Alameda Street in the city of Los Angeles, at a street crossing, over his body then lying on the railroad track, where he had been thrown by a passing automobile. A verdict was given for the defendant and the court below granted a new trial.

[1] The only point assigned for reversal is that the evidence did not justify the order granting a new trial, that is, that on the evidence, as given, the verdict should have been for the defendant as matter of law. The record shows ample evidence to indicate that the engineer in charge of the train, if he had exercised due care, could have seen the deceased lying on the track in ample time to have stopped the train. Under these circumstances we cannot disturb the order of the court granting a new trial.

The order is affirmed.

Lawlor, J., and Olney, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHAW, J.

This is an action for damages for the death of decedent, Wong On King, alleged to have been caused by the [469]*469conduct of the defendant in negligently propelling its engine along Alameda Street in the city of Los Angeles, at a street crossing, over his body then lying on the railroad track, where he had been thrown by a passing automobile. A verdict was given for the defendant and the court below granted a new trial.

[1] The only point assigned for reversal is that the evidence did not justify the order granting a new trial, that is, that on the evidence, as given, the verdict should have been for the defendant as matter of law. The record shows ample evidence to indicate that the engineer in charge of the train, if he had exercised due care, could have seen the deceased lying on the track in ample time to have stopped the train. Under these circumstances we cannot disturb the order of the court granting a new trial.

The order is affirmed.

Lawlor, J., and Olney, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 Cal. 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ching-wing-v-southern-pacific-co-cal-1919.