McQuilken v. Central Pacific Railroad

California Supreme Court

McQuilken v. Central Pacific Railroad

50 Cal. 7, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 70

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1875

DocketNo. 3936

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 50 Cal. 7 (McQuilken v. Central Pacific Railroad) 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

McQuilken v. Central Pacific Railroad, 50 Cal. 7, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 70 (Cal. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

The judge charged the jury: “If the want of care of plaintiff contributed to the accident she cannot recover. Proof in some form that the plaintiff did not contribute to the injury constitutes part of the plaintiff’s ease.” And again: “The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that she was, at the time of the accident in question, in the exercise of due care.” In Robinson v. W. P. R. R. Co. (48 Cal. 426), we held that negligence on the part of plaintiff, in cases like the present, is a matter of defense to be proved by defendant.

This ruling does not preclude the trial court from directing judgment by way of nonsuit, whenever the evidence introduced by plaintiff so conclusively establishes a defense [9]*9as that the court would grant a new trial in case of a verdict in his favor upon like evidence.

Order denying new trial reversed and cause remanded for new trial.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.

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

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

The judge charged the jury: “If the want of care of plaintiff contributed to the accident she cannot recover. Proof in some form that the plaintiff did not contribute to the injury constitutes part of the plaintiff’s ease.” And again: “The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that she was, at the time of the accident in question, in the exercise of due care.” In Robinson v. W. P. R. R. Co. (48 Cal. 426), we held that negligence on the part of plaintiff, in cases like the present, is a matter of defense to be proved by defendant.

This ruling does not preclude the trial court from directing judgment by way of nonsuit, whenever the evidence introduced by plaintiff so conclusively establishes a defense [9]*9as that the court would grant a new trial in case of a verdict in his favor upon like evidence.

Order denying new trial reversed and cause remanded for new trial.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Cal. 7, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcquilken-v-central-pacific-railroad-cal-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack