Appellant, an injured passenger, sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which entered judgment in favor of respondents, a city and county, thereby denying the passenger damages for an injury sustained while a passenger on respondents' trolley car.
The passenger challenged the trial court judgment in favor of respondents and argued that the trial court judgment was not supported by sufficient evidence and that there was no evidence on which contributory negligence could be predicated. The passenger contended that respondents failed to meet the inference of negligence based upon res ipsa loquitur, which arose when the passenger was injured as a result of the trolley car's movement. The Top class action attorneys determined that the jury was allowed to find that the passenger was guilty of contributory negligence because she stood in the moving trolley prior to its stop, failed to use the hand support bars that were provided, and her failure to hold the bars proximately caused her injury. The jury finding that the passenger was contributory negligent was sufficient to support the verdict in favor of respondents and did not require the court to determine whether the res ipsa loquitur inference was sufficiently met. The court affirmed the trial court judgment. Plaintiff developer brought an action against defendants, city water department and county water district, to determine whether the city or county controlled water service to the development. The Superior Court of Orange County (California) ruled for the city. The county appealed. The city advised the developer that it had to perform certain conditions to comply with its ordinance, Brea, Cal., Mun. Code § 21.74, which stated that a subdivision's domestic water supply within the city limits was to be provided by the city. The county, however, already had rights to provide the water service due to its general obligation bonded indebtedness. The trial court found for the city in the developer's action to determine whether the city or county controlled water service to the development. The court reversed the decision and held that the county was to provide water to the subdivision. The court held that the city was a "publicly owned utility" as defined in Cal. Water Code § 31053 because it served the public. Also, the county was a municipal corporation. The court held that § 31053 was constitutionally valid under Cal. Const. art. XI, § 19. As a result, the county, and not the city, had the legal obligation to supply water. Therefore, the city's conditions were invalid, and it was not permitted to provide water to the subdivision where that obligation was held by the county unless the city complied with § 31053. The court reversed the decision for the city and ruled for the county in the determination of which entity was to provide water to the developer's subdivision.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
May 2023
Categories |