Gardner v. Kreig

California Court of Appeal

Gardner v. Kreig

293 P. 710, 109 Cal. App. 616

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 18, 1930

DocketDocket No. 7388.

StatusPublished

This text of 293 P. 710 (Gardner v. Kreig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gardner v. Kreig, 293 P. 710, 109 Cal. App. 616 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

DOOLING, J., pro tem.

These four cases were tried to-

gether before a jury and by stipulation of the parties are presented together upon appeal. The four plaintiffs were injured on March 10, 1929, while riding as guests in an automobile operated by appellant. Upon appeal from judgments against her only two points are made by appellant. The first, based upon the subsequent adoption of section *617 141¾ of the California Vehicle Act (Stats. 1929, p. 1580), is no longer open since the decision of Krause v. Rarity, 210 Cal. 644 [293 Pac. 62], The second, that respondents were guilty of contributory negligence in doing no more than protest to appellant when they realized that she was driving at an excessive speed, was properly left to the jury which decided it against appellant. (Curran v. Earle C. Anthony, Inc., 77 Cal. App. 462 [247 Pac. 236] ; Dowd v. Atlas T. & A. Service, 187 Cal. 523 [202 Pac. 870]; Shields v. King, 207 Cal. 275 [277 Pac. 1043].),

Judgments affirmed.

Nourse, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on December 18, 1930, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on January 12, 1931.

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

DOOLING, J., pro tem.

These four cases were tried to-

gether before a jury and by stipulation of the parties are presented together upon appeal. The four plaintiffs were injured on March 10, 1929, while riding as guests in an automobile operated by appellant. Upon appeal from judgments against her only two points are made by appellant. The first, based upon the subsequent adoption of section *617 141¾ of the California Vehicle Act (Stats. 1929, p. 1580), is no longer open since the decision of Krause v. Rarity, 210 Cal. 644 [293 Pac. 62], The second, that respondents were guilty of contributory negligence in doing no more than protest to appellant when they realized that she was driving at an excessive speed, was properly left to the jury which decided it against appellant. (Curran v. Earle C. Anthony, Inc., 77 Cal. App. 462 [247 Pac. 236] ; Dowd v. Atlas T. & A. Service, 187 Cal. 523 [202 Pac. 870]; Shields v. King, 207 Cal. 275 [277 Pac. 1043].),

Judgments affirmed.

Nourse, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on December 18, 1930, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on January 12, 1931.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 P. 710, 109 Cal. App. 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-kreig-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack