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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1943–1958 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 |
|---|---|---|
Van Fleet v. Heylergreen2 sentences1943The rule, as stated generally, is that one who, in a sudden emergency, acts according to his best judgment, or who, because of want of time in which to form a judgment, omits to act in the most judicious manner, is not chargeable with negligence, provided he exercised in the emergency the care of a reasonably prudent individual under like circumstances.” An instruction quite similar in legal effect was held erroneous in Van Fleet v. Heyler, 51 Cal.App.2d 719 [ 125 P.2d 586 ], where it was said: “As a statement of the sudden peril rule this instruction is erroneous. 1943The rule, as stated generally, is that one who, in a sudden emergency, acts according to his best judgment, or who, because of want of time in which to form a judgment, omits to act in the most judicious manner, is not chargeable with negligence, provided he exercised in the emergency the care of a reasonably prudent individual under like circumstances.” An instruction quite similar in legal effect was held erroneous in Van Fleet v. Heyler, 51 Cal.App.2d 719 [ 125 P.2d 586 ], where it was said: “As a statement of the sudden peril rule this instruction is erroneous. | 1 | 2 |
Reuman v. La Monicagreen2 sentences1947In connection with instruction Number 34, it is further argued that that instruction told the jury that under the doctrine of sudden peril the operator of an automobile would not be guilty of negligence if he exercised ordinary care, in his choice of action when confronted by a sudden and dangerous emergency; that the duty to exercise ordinary care is a continuing one under the sudden peril doctrine and that that duty does not begin and end with the choice of action, but continues and persists at all times without and notwithstanding the choice, citing Reuman v. La Monica, 58 Cal.App.2d 303, 3 1947In connection with instruction Number 34, it is further argued that that instruction told the jury that under the doctrine of sudden peril the operator of an automobile would not be guilty of negligence if he exercised ordinary care, in his choice of action when confronted by a sudden and dangerous emergency; that the duty to exercise ordinary care is a continuing one under the sudden peril doctrine and that that duty does not begin and end with the choice of action, but continues and persists at all times without and notwithstanding the choice, citing Reuman v. La Monica, 58 Cal.App.2d 303, 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Consolidated Motor Transport Co.
green
2 sentences1958(Graham v. Consolidated Motor Transport Co., 112 Cal.App. 648 [ 297 P. 617 ].) It does appear that there was independent evidence of defendants’ negligence aside from the claimed unavoidable feature, which might well have justified a verdict against them. 1958(Graham v. Consolidated Motor Transport Co., 112 Cal.App. 648 [ 297 P. 617 ].) It does appear that there was independent evidence of defendants’ negligence aside from the claimed unavoidable feature, which might well have justified a verdict against them. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines
green
2 sentences1957(Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 40 Cal.2d 630 [ 255 P.2d 795 ].) The first instruction which appellant claimed should have been given was BAJI Number 137 on the doctrine of sudden peril. 1957(Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 40 Cal.2d 630 [ 255 P.2d 795 ].) The first instruction which appellant claimed should have been given was BAJI Number 137 on the doctrine of sudden peril. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Fischer v. Keen
green
2 sentences1957(Leo v. Dunham, 41 Cal.2d 712 [ 264 P.2d 1 ] ; Fischer v. Keen, 43 Cal.App.2d 244 [ 110 P.2d 693 ]; Kohlhauer v. Bronstein, 21 Cal.App.2d 4 [ 67 P.2d 1078 ].) The second instruction which appellants claim should have been given reads as follows: “It has been admitted that plaintiff Calvin H. 1957(Leo v. Dunham, 41 Cal.2d 712 [ 264 P.2d 1 ] ; Fischer v. Keen, 43 Cal.App.2d 244 [ 110 P.2d 693 ]; Kohlhauer v. Bronstein, 21 Cal.App.2d 4 [ 67 P.2d 1078 ].) The second instruction which appellants claim should have been given reads as follows: “It has been admitted that plaintiff Calvin H. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Kohlhauer v. Bronstein
green
2 sentences1957(Leo v. Dunham, 41 Cal.2d 712 [ 264 P.2d 1 ] ; Fischer v. Keen, 43 Cal.App.2d 244 [ 110 P.2d 693 ]; Kohlhauer v. Bronstein, 21 Cal.App.2d 4 [ 67 P.2d 1078 ].) The second instruction which appellants claim should have been given reads as follows: “It has been admitted that plaintiff Calvin H. 1957(Leo v. Dunham, 41 Cal.2d 712 [ 264 P.2d 1 ] ; Fischer v. Keen, 43 Cal.App.2d 244 [ 110 P.2d 693 ]; Kohlhauer v. Bronstein, 21 Cal.App.2d 4 [ 67 P.2d 1078 ].) The second instruction which appellants claim should have been given reads as follows: “It has been admitted that plaintiff Calvin H. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
McEachen v. Richmond
green
2 sentences1957(McEachen v. Redmond, 150 Cal.App.2d 546 [ 310 P.2d 122 ].) We hold that appellants were entitled to an instruction on the doctrine of sudden peril. 1957(McEachen v. Redmond, 150 Cal.App.2d 546 [ 310 P.2d 122 ].) We hold that appellants were entitled to an instruction on the doctrine of sudden peril. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Leo v. Dunham
green
2 sentences1957(Leo v. Dunham, 41 Cal.2d 712 [ 264 P.2d 1 ] ; Fischer v. Keen, 43 Cal.App.2d 244 [ 110 P.2d 693 ]; Kohlhauer v. Bronstein, 21 Cal.App.2d 4 [ 67 P.2d 1078 ].) The second instruction which appellants claim should have been given reads as follows: “It has been admitted that plaintiff Calvin H. 1957(Leo v. Dunham, 41 Cal.2d 712 [ 264 P.2d 1 ] ; Fischer v. Keen, 43 Cal.App.2d 244 [ 110 P.2d 693 ]; Kohlhauer v. Bronstein, 21 Cal.App.2d 4 [ 67 P.2d 1078 ].) The second instruction which appellants claim should have been given reads as follows: “It has been admitted that plaintiff Calvin H. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.