Boyd v. Oddous

Citations

• 97 Cal. 510
• 32 P. 569
• 1893 Cal. LEXIS 580

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Keeping of Vicious Dog — Pleading — Contkibutoby Negligence. —A complaint in an action to recover damages, alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff from the bite of a vicious dog owned and kept by the defendant, in consequence of the negligent manner in which the defendant kept the dog, need not negative contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.</p> <p>Id. — Conflicting Evidence — Appeal. — Where the evidence in such actions is conflicting, both as to the negligence of the defendant and as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff upon both these issues will not be disturbed upon appeal.</p> <p>Instructions — Appeal — Argument of Counsel — General Objection. '— Where the court gave oral instructions, intended to cover the whole ground of instructions asked by both parties, so far as possible, and which, though not very perspicuous, appear to contain no error prejudicial to appellant, an objection, urged in the points and authorities of counsel for appellant, merely stating “that instructions asked by appellant were proper, and that they were not covered by the court’s charge to the jury,” is too general. The proper instructions said to have been asked, and not substantially given, should have been specified by the counsel.</p>