Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1956–1970 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.green2 sentences1970(Ybarra v. Spangard, supra, 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [ 154 P.2d 687 , 162 A.L.R. 1258 ]; Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 39 Cal.2d 436, 444 ; Rest.2d Torts, § 328 D(l) (b); Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) pp. 228-229.) While a plaintiff may properly rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he was not inactive at the time of the accident and participated in the events leading up to it, before he can do so the evidence must exclude his conduct as the responsible cause. 1966(Ybarra v. Spangard, supra, 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 ; Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 39 Cal.2d 436, 444 ; Rest.2d, Torts, § 328 D(1) (b); Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) pp. 228-229.) While a plaintiff may properly rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he was not inactive at the time of the accident and participated in the events leading up to it, before he can do so the evidence must exclude his conduct as the responsible cause. | 1 | 3 |
Shahinian v. McCormickgreen2 sentences1970(Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, *670 at pp. 444-445; Shahinian v. McCormick, supra, 59 Cal.2d 554, 560 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 521 , 381 P.2d 377 ]; Prosser on Torts, supra; . . . 1970(Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, *670 at pp. 444-445; Shahinian v. McCormick, supra, 59 Cal.2d 554, 560 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 521 , 381 P.2d 377 ]; Prosser on Torts, supra; . . . | 1 | 2 |
Ybarra v. Spangardgreen2 sentences1970(Ybarra v. Spangard, supra, 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [ 154 P.2d 687 , 162 A.L.R. 1258 ]; Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 39 Cal.2d 436, 444 ; Rest.2d Torts, § 328 D(l) (b); Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) pp. 228-229.) While a plaintiff may properly rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he was not inactive at the time of the accident and participated in the events leading up to it, before he can do so the evidence must exclude his conduct as the responsible cause. 1970(Ybarra v. Spangard, supra, 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [ 154 P.2d 687 , 162 A.L.R. 1258 ]; Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 39 Cal.2d 436, 444 ; Rest.2d Torts, § 328 D(l) (b); Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) pp. 228-229.) While a plaintiff may properly rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he was not inactive at the time of the accident and participated in the events leading up to it, before he can do so the evidence must exclude his conduct as the responsible cause. | 1 | 2 |
Simmons v. Rhodes & Jamieson, Ltd.green2 sentences1957In Simmons v. Rhodes & Jamieson, Ltd., 46 Cal.2d 190, 195 [ 293 P.2d 26 ], it is held that plaintiff may properly rely upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he has participated in the events leading to the accident if the evidence excludes his conduct as the reasonable cause. 1957In Simmons v. Rhodes & Jamieson, Ltd., 46 Cal.2d 190, 195 [ 293 P.2d 26 ], it is held that plaintiff may properly rely upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he has participated in the events leading to the accident if the evidence excludes his conduct as the reasonable cause. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rogers v. Los Angeles Transit Lines
green
2 sentences1966The Supreme Court said, in Rogers v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 45 Cal.2d 414 , at page 418 [ 289 P.2d 226 ] : “While it would appear that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is clearly applicable as between plaintiff and Feb and Transit Lines, plaintiff did not invoke the doctrine either in the trial court or on this appeal. 1966The Supreme Court said, in Rogers v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 45 Cal.2d 414 , at page 418 [ 289 P.2d 226 ] : “While it would appear that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is clearly applicable as between plaintiff and Feb and Transit Lines, plaintiff did not invoke the doctrine either in the trial court or on this appeal. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
green
2 sentences1957(Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453 [ 150 P.2d 436 ].) As to the third requirement, the rule is that a plaintiff may rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he has participated in the events leading to the accident if the evidence excludes his conduct as a responsible cause. 1957(Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453 [ 150 P.2d 436 ].) As to the third requirement, the rule is that a plaintiff may rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he has participated in the events leading to the accident if the evidence excludes his conduct as a responsible cause. | 1 | 1957–1957 |