Kaeo v. Davis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that \we think the proffered evidence met the `much relaxed standard applicable when admission is sought on the ground that the prior accidents should have attracted the City's attention to a potentially dangerous condition\
• allowing evidence of previous accidents as proof of dangerous condition if “ ‘the conditions under which the alleged previous accidents occurred were the same or substantially similar to the one in question’ ”
• finding evidence that defendant had drunk several beers was relevant in action stemming from motor vehicle accident in light of evidence calling into question the care in which he drove the vehicle
• “[Tjhe admission of evidence of prior similar [automobile] accidents is ... within the discretion of a trial court.”
• evidence that defendant drank four beers supported inference that defendant’s perception and motor skills were impaired, which in turn supported inference of ultimate issue of negligent operation of motor vehicle
• evidence driver consumed alcohol and was “feeling good” supported the ultimate inference that he operated his vehicle negligently

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).