Mize v. Jorden

1 Citing case

  1. Steele v. Nagel

    89 Idaho 522 (Idaho 1965)   Cited 19 times
    In Steele, the Court echoed the holding in Abbs when it stated that implied permission is a question of fact for the jury, unless the evidence is subject to only one reasonable conclusion that may be deduced from the evidence.

    In regard to the precise issue of consent or permission, the California courts have uniformly held that the element of permission is necessary to a determination of liability under Section 402 and is a question of fact to be proved at the trial. Irvine v. Wilson, 137 Cal.App.2d Supp. 843, 289 P.2d 895 (1955); Mize v. Jorden, 116 Cal.App.2d 301, 253 P.2d 702 (1953); Scheff v. Roberts, 35 Cal.2d 10, 215 P.2d 925 (1950); Reed v. Cortez, 88 Cal.App.2d 416, 198 P.2d 911 (1948); Hobbs v. Transport Motor Co., 22 Cal.2d 773, 141 P.2d 738 (1943). This general rule is further stated in 8 Am.Jur.2d ยง 605, at p. 157: