Shurtleff v. Wynns

2 Citing cases

  1. Maus v. Scavenger Protective Ass'n

    2 Cal.App.2d 624 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)   Cited 14 times

    He testified to his sales during corresponding periods in 1928, 1929 and 1930 as compared with those of 1931, and the difference in his earnings based upon commissions, the rate being the same each year. The right to recover such losses as special damages is well settled ( Bonneau v. North Shore R.R. Co., 152 Cal. 406 [ 93 P. 106, 125 Am. St. Rep. 68]; Shaw v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 157 Cal. 240, 242 [ 107 P. 108]; Hollander v. Wilson Estate Co., 214 Cal. 582 [ 7 P.2d 177]; Shurtleff v. Wynns, 114 Cal.App. 653 [ 300 P. 890]); and a defendant is not to be relieved from liability merely because the circumstances are such that an exact computation cannot be made ( Hanlon Drydock Shipbuilding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 92 Cal.App. 230 [ 268 P. 385]). Here the evidence showed with a reasonable degree of certainty the loss which plaintiff suffered in this respect.

  2. Shurtleff v. Wynns

    114 Cal.App. 768 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)

    BARNARD, P.J. This action grew out of the same state of facts as the case of Fred C. Shurtleff v. B. Wynns et al. (Civil No. 500), ante, p. 653 [ 300 P. 890], this day decided. This action was separately brought to recover for injuries sustained by the wife of Fred C. Shurtleff in the same automobile collision.