gno.law

Sargent v. North End Water Co.

California Supreme Court · L. A. No. 6865. · 1923-03-01 · Published · 213 P. 33 · 190 Cal. 512 · 1923 Cal. LEXIS 565

RAY L. SARGENT, Respondent, v. NORTH END WATER COMPANY (A Corporation), Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Orange County
Trial judge
R. Y. Williams
Outcome
reversed — Reversed.
Area
civil
Panel
The Court (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

THE COURT.

The following opinion was rendered by the court from the bench on February 19, 1923.

The judgment is reversed because of the error of the trial court in modifying instruction No. 3 by striking out the portion thereof in italics. The instruction is as "follows:

“You are further instructed that if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff, Ray L. Sargent, could by the exercise of reasonable diligence have prevented the injury complained of, but failed to do so, then your verdict must be for the defendant, and if you, find that the plaintiff could have prevented the injury complained of hy the expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money, and find dtherwise according to these instructions that the plaintiff is entitled to recover anything at all from the defendant, 'then thei measure of damage would he the amount of money which *513 could have reasonably prevented the injury complained of had the plaintiff expended said money.”

The judgment is reversed.

Wilbur, C. J., Lawler, J., Lennon, J., Waste, J., Sea-well, J., Kerrigan, J., and Myers, J., concurred.

Cited by