Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Webster v. Ebright

3 Cal.App.4th 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Webster v. Ebright

6 Citing cases

  1. Wright v. Midwest Old Settlers

    556 N.W.2d 808 (Iowa 1996)   Cited 7 times
    Defining common carrier as one who "holds itself out to the public as a carrier of all goods and persons for hire"

    Id. at 931. Finally, in Webster v. Ebright, 3 Cal.App.4th 784, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 714 (1992), the plaintiff sued the owner of a horse stable after she sustained injuries while riding a rented horse. The plaintiff alleged the owner of the stable was a common carrier.

  2. Gomez v. Superior Court

    35 Cal.4th 1125 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that the operator of the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland qualified as a common carrier

    ]" ( Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid TransitDist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 785 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 840, 710 P.2d 907].)Webster v. Ebright (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 784 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 714] held that section 2100 applies only to common carriers, and not to private carriers for reward. We stated in Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., supra, 40 Cal.3d 780, 785, that "[t]he duty imposed by section 2100 applies to public carriers as well as private carriers. . . ."

  3. Gomez v. Superior Court

    110 Cal.App.4th 667 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 1 times

    These sections apply to common carriers for reward. (E.g., Platzer v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1257 [§ 2100]; Webster v. Ebright (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 784 [same]; Gradus v. Hanson Aviation, Inc. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1049 [§ 2101]; Cooper v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 389, 396 [same].) Disney demurred to the common carrier causes of action in the first amended complaint.

  4. Van Maanen v. Youth with a Mission-Bishop

    852 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (E.D. Cal. 2012)   Cited 17 times
    Refusing to strike a declaration submitted in support of a summary judgment motion where the declarant's "identity, position, location, and the subject of the information he possessed were made known to Plaintiff through" other depositions in the case because those depositions occurred more than a month before the discovery cutoff

    Samuelson v. Public Utilities Com., 36 Cal.2d 722, 730, 227 P.2d 256 (Cal.1951); Duntley, 217 Cal. at 163–64, 17 P.2d 715. Private carriers “make no public profession that they will carry for all who apply, but who occasionally or upon the particular occasion undertake for compensation to carry the goods of others upon such terms as may be agreed upon.” Webster v. Ebright, 3 Cal.App.4th 784, 788, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 714 (Cal.App.1992). Private carriers are not bound to carry for any reason unless they enter into a special agreement to do so. Associated Pipe Line Co. v. R.R. Comm'n., 176 Cal. 518, 169 P. 62 (Cal.1917).

  5. Chubb Group of Ins. Companies v. H.A. Transp. Systems, Inc.

    243 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (C.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 63 times
    Holding defendant was a broker where the bill of lading identifying defendant as the carrier was written by third party and there was no showing that defendant represented to plaintiff that it would transport the items itself; instead, defendant's actions were consistent with those of a broker

    CA Civ. Code § 2168. California courts interpret that definition to include only those who are "bound to accept anyone who tenders the price of carriage.' Webster v. Ebright, 3 Cal.App.4th 784, 787, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 714 (1992) (citing Samuelson v. Public Utilities Com., 36 Cal.2d 722, 729, 227 P.2d 256 (1951)). Chubb has proffered no evidence to suggest that HA.

  6. Mendez v. Iglesia De Cristo Ministerios Llamada Final, Inc.

    No. E072536 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2020)

    See Alcala v. Vazmar Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 747, 755-756 [Vehicle Code is relevant to the doctrine of negligence per se which " 'means that the court has adopted the conduct prescribed by the statute as the standard of care for a reasonable person in the circumstances' "]. See also Webster v. Ebright (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 784, 787 [Civil Code section 2100 codifies previous common law principles imposing a heightened duty of care for common carriers]. D. Plaintiffs Have Not Met Their Burden to Show an Abuse of Discretion