7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Leo v. Dunhamgreen2 sentences2021In any event, the other evidence in the record is sufficient to affirm the juvenile court’s finding of negligence. 10 judgment and prudence that is required of him in exercise of ordinary care in calmer and more deliberate moments.” (Leo v. Dunham (1953) 41 Cal.2d 712, 714 .) “ ‘The doctrine . . . is properly applied only in cases where an unexpected physical danger is presented so suddenly as to deprive the driver of his power of using reasonable judgment. [Citations.] A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party’s negligence causes or contributes to t 2018That [Laramee] acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted in similar circumstances, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer." "The doctrine of imminent peril is properly applied only in cases where an unexpected physical danger is presented so suddenly as to deprive the driver of his power of using reasonable judgment. [Citations.] A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party's negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. [Citations.]" ( Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.A | 3 | 4 |
Shiver v. Larameegreen2 sentences2025(See Shiver, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 399 [“A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party’s negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation.”].) With respect to whether Miranda’s response was reasonable under the circumstances, Cirignano similarly argued that Miranda had not established a prima facie case that the claims were precluded because of his following distance. 2021In any event, the other evidence in the record is sufficient to affirm the juvenile court’s finding of negligence. 10 judgment and prudence that is required of him in exercise of ordinary care in calmer and more deliberate moments.” (Leo v. Dunham (1953) 41 Cal.2d 712, 714 .) “ ‘The doctrine . . . is properly applied only in cases where an unexpected physical danger is presented so suddenly as to deprive the driver of his power of using reasonable judgment. [Citations.] A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party’s negligence causes or contributes to t | 2 | 2 |
Groat v. Walkup Drayage & Warehouse Co.green2 sentences1967(Groat v. Walkup Drayage etc. Co., 14 Cal.App.2d 350, 354 [ 58 P.2d 200 ]; Sadoian v. Modesto Refrigerating Co., 157 Cal.App.2d 266, 274 [ 320 P.2d 583 ].) A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party’s negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. 1967(Groat v. Walkup Drayage etc. Co., 14 Cal.App.2d 350, 354 [ 58 P.2d 200 ]; Sadoian v. Modesto Refrigerating Co., 157 Cal.App.2d 266, 274 [ 320 P.2d 583 ].) A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party’s negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. | 2 | 2 |
Sadoian v. Modesto Refrigerating Co.green2 sentences1967(Groat v. Walkup Drayage etc. Co., 14 Cal.App.2d 350, 354 [ 58 P.2d 200 ]; Sadoian v. Modesto Refrigerating Co., 157 Cal.App.2d 266, 274 [ 320 P.2d 583 ].) A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party’s negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. 1967(Groat v. Walkup Drayage etc. Co., 14 Cal.App.2d 350, 354 [ 58 P.2d 200 ]; Sadoian v. Modesto Refrigerating Co., 157 Cal.App.2d 266, 274 [ 320 P.2d 583 ].) A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party’s negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. | 2 | 2 |
Dodds v. Giffordgreen2 sentences1967(Groat v. Walkup Drayage etc. Co., supra; Brooks v. City of Monterey, 106 Cal.App. 649, 656 [ 290 P. 540 ] ; Dodds v. Gifford, 127 Cal.App. 629, 632-633 [ 16 P.2d 279 ].) Whether an individual has been suddenly confronted with imminent peril is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. 1967(Groat v. Walkup Drayage etc. Co., supra; Brooks v. City of Monterey, 106 Cal.App. 649, 656 [ 290 P. 540 ] ; Dodds v. Gifford, 127 Cal.App. 629, 632-633 [ 16 P.2d 279 ].) Whether an individual has been suddenly confronted with imminent peril is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. | 2 | 2 |
Brooks v. City of Montereygreen2 sentences1967(Groat v. Walkup Drayage etc. Co., supra; Brooks v. City of Monterey, 106 Cal.App. 649, 656 [ 290 P. 540 ] ; Dodds v. Gifford, 127 Cal.App. 629, 632-633 [ 16 P.2d 279 ].) Whether an individual has been suddenly confronted with imminent peril is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. 1967(Groat v. Walkup Drayage etc. Co., supra; Brooks v. City of Monterey, 106 Cal.App. 649, 656 [ 290 P. 540 ] ; Dodds v. Gifford, 127 Cal.App. 629, 632-633 [ 16 P.2d 279 ].) Whether an individual has been suddenly confronted with imminent peril is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scala v. Jerry Witt & Sons, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018That [Laramee] acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted in similar circumstances, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer." "The doctrine of imminent peril is properly applied only in cases where an unexpected physical danger is presented so suddenly as to deprive the driver of his power of using reasonable judgment. [Citations.] A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party's negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. [Citations.]" ( Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.A 2018That [Laramee] acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted in similar circumstances, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer." "The doctrine of imminent peril is properly applied only in cases where an unexpected physical danger is presented so suddenly as to deprive the driver of his power of using reasonable judgment. [Citations.] A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party's negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. [Citations.]" ( Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.A | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Schultz v. Mathias
green
2 sentences2018That [Laramee] acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted in similar circumstances, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer." "The doctrine of imminent peril is properly applied only in cases where an unexpected physical danger is presented so suddenly as to deprive the driver of his power of using reasonable judgment. [Citations.] A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party's negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. [Citations.]" ( Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.A 2018That [Laramee] acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted in similar circumstances, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer." "The doctrine of imminent peril is properly applied only in cases where an unexpected physical danger is presented so suddenly as to deprive the driver of his power of using reasonable judgment. [Citations.] A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party's negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. [Citations.]" ( Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.A | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Pittman v. Boiven
green
2 sentences2018That [Laramee] acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted in similar circumstances, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer." "The doctrine of imminent peril is properly applied only in cases where an unexpected physical danger is presented so suddenly as to deprive the driver of his power of using reasonable judgment. [Citations.] A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party's negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. [Citations.]" ( Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.A 2018That [Laramee] acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted in similar circumstances, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer." "The doctrine of imminent peril is properly applied only in cases where an unexpected physical danger is presented so suddenly as to deprive the driver of his power of using reasonable judgment. [Citations.] A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party's negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. [Citations.]" ( Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.A | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
green
2 sentences2018That [Laramee] acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted in similar circumstances, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer." "The doctrine of imminent peril is properly applied only in cases where an unexpected physical danger is presented so suddenly as to deprive the driver of his power of using reasonable judgment. [Citations.] A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party's negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. [Citations.]" ( Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.A 2018That [Laramee] acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted in similar circumstances, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer." "The doctrine of imminent peril is properly applied only in cases where an unexpected physical danger is presented so suddenly as to deprive the driver of his power of using reasonable judgment. [Citations.] A party will be denied the benefit of the doctrine of imminent peril where that party's negligence causes or contributes to the creation of the perilous situation. [Citations.]" ( Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.A | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.