Frediani v. Haines

1 Citing case

  1. Acosta v. Castle Const., Inc.

    117 N.M. 28 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 7 times
    Vacating a summary judgment entered against a brother working at a construction site who "heard a series of screams," immediately ran towards the location of the screaming, and, seconds later, observed "his brother's mouth and nostrils ... still smoking as a result of his brother's electrocution"

    SCRA 13-1629. But see Frediani v. Haines, 210 Cal.App.3d 1036, 242 Cal.Rptr. 856 (1988). In sum, we conclude that the facts as alleged by Acosta were sufficient to give rise to a material disputed factual issue as to whether he satisfied the "contemporaneous sensory perception" requirement.