Edlund v. Ruhmland

California Court of Appeal Mar 26, 1935 No. Civ. No. 9420Published

Before: Fricke

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's judgment for the defendants is conclusive because the case presented a question of fact regarding negligence and proximate cause rather than a question of law.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported a finding that the defendant was not negligent and the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The judgment is affirmed.”

FRICKE, J., pro tem. Appeal from judgment for defendants in an action for personal injuries to appellant Huida Edlund, who was struck by the automobile of respondent Jack Ruhmland while attempting to cross the street to go to her home.

While there was evidence which if uncontradicted would establish plaintiffs’ cause of action, there was ample evidence that the collision was not proximately caused by any negligence on the part of the driver of the automobile, and that the plaintiff Mrs. Edlund was herself guilty of negligence directly the cause of her being struck and injured. The question here is, therefore, not one of law but [528]one of fact, upon which the determination of the trial court is conclusive.

The judgment is affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Crail, J., concurred.

Edlund v. Ruhmland

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief