Lockard v. Matlaw

California Court of Appeal

Lockard v. Matlaw

35 P.2d 591, 140 Cal. App. 640, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1090

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 13, 1934

DocketCiv. No. 9822

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 P.2d 591 (Lockard v. Matlaw) 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

Lockard v. Matlaw, 35 P.2d 591, 140 Cal. App. 640, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1090 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

CONREY, P. J.

Motion by the respondent for dismissal of the appeal or affirmance of judgment on the ground that the question on which the decision depends is so Unsubstantial as not to need further argument.

The liability of appellant for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff is founded upon provisions of section 141% of the California Vehicle Act. At the time of the accident respondent was riding in the automobile as guest of appellant, who was driving. The injury to the plaintiff proximately resulted from the intoxication of appellant, and his consequent negligence.

The sole ground of appeal as presented in the brief for appellant is that under the evidence it is an established fact that respondent knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that appellant was intoxicated when she undertook to ride with him as his guest, and that therefore as a matter of law she was guilty of contributory negligence. The evidence as set forth in the brief is entirely sufficient to negative both of these propositions. Under the decisions applicable to the case this court is not authorized to reweigh the evidence and reverse the trial court’s findings of fact.

The judgment is affirmed.

York, J., and Hahn, J., pro iem., concurred.

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

CONREY, P. J.

Motion by the respondent for dismissal of the appeal or affirmance of judgment on the ground that the question on which the decision depends is so Unsubstantial as not to need further argument.

The liability of appellant for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff is founded upon provisions of section 141% of the California Vehicle Act. At the time of the accident respondent was riding in the automobile as guest of appellant, who was driving. The injury to the plaintiff proximately resulted from the intoxication of appellant, and his consequent negligence.

The sole ground of appeal as presented in the brief for appellant is that under the evidence it is an established fact that respondent knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that appellant was intoxicated when she undertook to ride with him as his guest, and that therefore as a matter of law she was guilty of contributory negligence. The evidence as set forth in the brief is entirely sufficient to negative both of these propositions. Under the decisions applicable to the case this court is not authorized to reweigh the evidence and reverse the trial court’s findings of fact.

The judgment is affirmed.

York, J., and Hahn, J., pro iem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 P.2d 591, 140 Cal. App. 640, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockard-v-matlaw-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack