McQuilken v. Central Pacific Railroad
MARY FRANCES McQUILKEN, by JOHN McQUILKEN, her Guardian ad litem v. THE CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- E. W. McKinstry (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 — McKinstry
By the Court, McKinstry, J.:
The judge charged the jury: “If the want of care of plaintiff contributed to the accident she cannot recover. Proof in some form that the plaintiff did not contribute to the injury constitutes part of the plaintiff’s ease.” And again: “The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that she was, at the time of the accident in question, in the exercise of due care.” In Robinson v. W. P. R. R. Co. (48 Cal. 426), we held that negligence on the part of plaintiff, in cases like the present, is a matter of defense to be proved by defendant.
This ruling does not preclude the trial court from directing judgment by way of nonsuit, whenever the evidence introduced by plaintiff so conclusively establishes a defense *9as that the court would grant a new trial in case of a verdict in his favor upon like evidence.
Order denying new trial reversed and cause remanded for new trial.
Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.
Cites, in this corpus
- Robinson v. Western Pacific Railroad No. 3,033 · 1874-07-01
Cited by
- Garot v. County of San Diego 3:19-cv-01650 · 2023-03-22
- Jacob v. Watson Docket No. 7417. · 1931-04-09
- Goldstone v. Merchants' Ice & Cold Storage Co. S. F. No. 737 · 1899-03-03
- Magee v. North Pacific Coast Railroad No. 11730 · 1889-03-21