From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

House v. Meyer

Supreme Court of California
Dec 29, 1893
100 Cal. 592 (Cal. 1893)

Summary

In House v. Meyer, supra, an action for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant, the complaint charged the negligence in general language, and the complaint on appeal was that a general allegation of negligence was insufficient to state such a cause of action.

Summary of this case from People ex rel. Bradford v. Arcega

Opinion

         Department Two

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial.

         COUNSEL:

         The demurrer should have been sustained. The allegations of the complaint as to negligence were insufficient. (Kellogg v. Northampton, 4 Gray, 65; Going v. Dinwiddie , 86 Cal. 638; Miles v. McDermott , 31 Cal. 273; Triscony v. Orr , 49 Cal. 617; Reardon v. San Francisco , 66 Cal. 493; 56 Am. Rep. 109; Pratt v. Gardner, 2 Cush. 63; 48 Am. Dec. 652; 1 Thompson on Negligence, 364.)

         Reymert & Orfila, for Appellant.

          C. C. Stephens, for Respondents.


         The complaint is sufficient, and the demurrer was properly overruled. (Abbott's Forms, p. 452, form 545; 1 Boone on Code Pleading, 329; 2 Boone on Code Pleading, 309; 1 Estee on Pleadings, 655; Bliss on Code Pleadings, 259; Wilson v. Cunningham , 3 Cal. 241; 58 Am. Dec. 407; Sykes v. Lawlor , 49 Cal. 236; Davies v. Oceanic S. S. Co ., 89 Cal. 280; Smith v. Buttner , 90 Cal. 100; Whalen v. Arcata etc. R. R. Co ., 92 Cal. 669; Swain v. Fourteenth St. R. R. Co ., 93 Cal. 179; Kneir v. Watrous , 94 Cal. 594.)

         JUDGES: De Haven, J. McFarland, J., and Fitzgerald, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          DE HAVEN, Judge

         The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled. In an action like this, to recover damages resulting from the alleged negligence of a defendant, a general allegation of negligence upon the part of the defendant is sufficient. "The negligence is the ultimate fact to be pleaded, and is not a legal conclusion." (Bliss on Code Pleading, sec. 211.)

         Nor was it incumbent on the plaintiffs to allege that they were not guilty of contributory negligence. (Robinson v. Western P. R. R. Co ., 48 Cal. 409.)

         The appeal in this case is without merit.

         Judgment and order affirmed.


Summaries of

House v. Meyer

Supreme Court of California
Dec 29, 1893
100 Cal. 592 (Cal. 1893)

In House v. Meyer, supra, an action for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant, the complaint charged the negligence in general language, and the complaint on appeal was that a general allegation of negligence was insufficient to state such a cause of action.

Summary of this case from People ex rel. Bradford v. Arcega
Case details for

House v. Meyer

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS HOUSE et ux., Respondents, v. MARIUS MEYER, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Dec 29, 1893

Citations

100 Cal. 592 (Cal. 1893)
35 P. 308

Citing Cases

Whitney v. Northwestern Pac. R. R. Co.

As said in that case, it is only when but one conclusion can reasonably be reached from the evidence on the…

Mugford v. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co.

The questions of negligence and contributory negligence in this case were questions of fact for the jury,…