turntable cases doctrine in California

1956As expressed in Whalen v. Streshley, 205 Cal. 78, 81 [ 269 P. 928 , 60 A.L.R. 445 ] . . .: “Unless the case falls within the doctrine of the turntable cases—a doctrine which this court and others have refused to extend—the plaintiff may not recover, and we are of the opinion that there is no analogy between those cases and the instant one.

1956As expressed in Whalen v. Streshley, 205 Cal. 78, 81 [ 269 P. 928 , 60 A.L.R. 445 ] . . .: “Unless the case falls within the doctrine of the turntable cases—a doctrine which this court and others have refused to extend—the plaintiff may not recover, and we are of the opinion that there is no analogy between those cases and the instant one.

1956In the case of Peters v. Bowman, 115 Cal. 345 [ 47 P. 113, 598 , 56 Am.St.Rep. 106 ], this court refused to extend the rule of *118 the turntable eases to a pond of water, and characterized that rule as an exceptionally harsh rule of liability. ’ “That the courts, recognizing the doctrine, refuse to extend it is also pointed out in 65 C.J.S. 479, § 29 (14) where it is said: ‘Even in jurisdictions where the attractive nuisance doctrine has been accepted the tendency is to limit rather than to extend it, and the doctrine is said to be one which should be applied very cautiously and only when the

1956In the case of Peters v. Bowman, 115 Cal. 345 [ 47 P. 113, 598 , 56 Am.St.Rep. 106 ], this court refused to extend the rule of *118 the turntable eases to a pond of water, and characterized that rule as an exceptionally harsh rule of liability. ’ “That the courts, recognizing the doctrine, refuse to extend it is also pointed out in 65 C.J.S. 479, § 29 (14) where it is said: ‘Even in jurisdictions where the attractive nuisance doctrine has been accepted the tendency is to limit rather than to extend it, and the doctrine is said to be one which should be applied very cautiously and only when the

1950His liability bears a relation to the character of the thing, whether natural and common, or artificial and uncommon, to the comparative ease or difficulty of preventing the danger without destroying or impairing the usefulness of the thing, and, in short, to the reasonableness and propriety of his own conduct, in view of all surrounding circumstances and conditions." (Emphasis added.) In Loftus v. Dehail, 133 Cal. 214, 218 [ 65 P. 379 ], the court said: "But it by no means follows, ... that anything or everything which a jury may find, or a court may determine, to be attractive as a playgroun

1950His liability bears a relation to the character of the thing, whether natural and common, or artificial and uncommon, to the comparative ease or difficulty of preventing the danger without destroying or impairing the usefulness of the thing, and, in short, to the reasonableness and propriety of his own conduct, in view of all surrounding circumstances and conditions." (Emphasis added.) In Loftus v. Dehail, 133 Cal. 214, 218 [ 65 P. 379 ], the court said: "But it by no means follows, ... that anything or everything which a jury may find, or a court may determine, to be attractive as a playgroun

1924Co., 3 Cal. App. 606, 618 [ 86 Pac. 738, 903 ].) The case was tried, however, on the theory that the doctrine of the turntable cases, or the attractive nuisance doctrine is applicable.

1924Co., 3 Cal. App. 606, 618 [ 86 Pac. 738, 903 ].) The case was tried, however, on the theory that the doctrine of the turntable cases, or the attractive nuisance doctrine is applicable.