Tompkins v. Clay St. R.R.
Citations
- 66 Cal. 163
- 4 P. 1165
- 1884 Cal. LEXIS 717
Syllabus
<p>Carriers of Passengers—Collision—Parties.—When a collision of two street cars is occasioned by the negligence of the managers of both vehicles, a passenger upon either car who is injured by the collision may recover damages against the proprietor of either or both. Where both proprietors are sued, the plaintiff may dismiss as to either, and if it turn out at the trial that one proprietor was not guilty of negligence, he may, on sufficient evidence, take a verdict against the other.</p> <p>Id.—Negligence—Presumftion.—In an action by a passenger against two carriers of passengers, for damages caused by a collision, no presumption of negligence arises from the mere fact of the injury, as against the proprietor of the vehicle not occupied by the plaintiff.</p> <p>Id.—Release of One Carrier—Estoppel.—When a passenger injured by a collision brings an action against the proprietors of both vehicles, a release of one of the defendants, who was a party in fault, in consideration of a sum of money paid to the plaintiff, operates as a release of both of the defendants. The plaintiff is estopped from asserting that the party to whom the release was given was not in fault, and not liable for the injury.</p>
Judges: McKinstry
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
44 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- McKenna v. AustinD.C. Circuit· 1943-02-11· cited 149×
- Ash v. MortensenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1944-08-11· cited 100×
- Theobald v. AngelosSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1965-03-15· cited 87×
- Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. StarleyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1946-06-18· cited 75×
- Abb v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1902-04-25· cited 63×
- Aidan Ming-Ho Leung v. Verdugo Hills HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court· 2012-08-23· cited 55×
- Lamoreux v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co.California Supreme Court· 1957-05-28· cited 47×
- Seither v. Philad. Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1889-04-08· cited 46×
- Miller v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals· 1911-02-21· cited 45×
- Miller v. F. Beck & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa· 1899-05-24· cited 42×
- Dulaney v. BuffumSupreme Court of Missouri· 1903-03-17· cited 42×
- Milicevich v. Sacramento Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1984-05-16· cited 34×
- Becke v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri· 1890-10-15· cited 33×
- Martin v. CunninghamWashington Supreme Court· 1916-12-05· cited 32×
- Flaherty v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1888-11-07· cited 30×
- Blackburn v. McCoyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1934-10-30· cited 28×
- Hillyer v. City of East ClevelandOhio Supreme Court· 1951-06-13· cited 24×
- Butler v. AshworthCalifornia Supreme Court· 1895-12-30· cited 23×
- Randolph v. O'RiordonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1892-01-07· cited 23×
- Hartigan v. DicksonSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1900-10-29· cited 23×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.