TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robinson v. Pioche, Bayerque & Co.

DAVID G. ROBINSON v. PIOCHE, BAYERQUE & CO.

Robinson v. Pioche, Bayerque & Co., 5 Cal. 460 (1855)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1855
Judges
Heydenfeldt
Citations
5 Cal. 460
Cited by 19
Syllabus
Intoxication of the plaintiff is no defense to an action for damages for injuries caused by falling through an uncovered hole in the sidewalk of a public street.
Summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. Action for damages sustained by the plaintiff in falling into an uncovered hole, dug in the sidewalk in front of defendants' premises. The Court below gave the following instructions to the jury: Third—“ If the plaintiff’s negligence in any manner contributed to his injury, he cannot recover.” Fourth—“If at the time of the accident the plaintiff was intoxicated from the use of ardent spirits, and that was one of the causes which caused the accident, the plaintiff cannot recover.” Fifth—“ Drunkenness at the time of the accident on the part of the plaintiff, is proper for the jury to consider on the subject of negligence on the part of the plaintiff.” The jury found a verdict for the defendants, and plaintiff appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Heydenfeldt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The Court below erred in giving the third, fourth and fifth instructions. If the defendants were at fault in leaving an uncovered hole in the sidewalk of a public street, the intoxication of the plaintiff cannot excuse such gross negligence. A drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street, as a sober one, and much more in need of it.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →
1858–1859: 11874–1875: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 11916–1917: 11938–1939: 11948–1949: 11958–1959: 11962–1963: 11964–1965: 11974–1975: 11976–1977: 21982–1983: 11986–1987: 11988–1989: 11990–1991: 11994–1995: 12000–2001: 118582026peak 1976 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ginn v. Renaldo, Inc.359 S.E.2d 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)
  2. Silva v. Providence Hospital of Oakland97 P.2d 798 (Cal. 1939)
  3. Ramsey v. Anctil211 A.2d 900 (N.H. 1965)
  4. Slaubaugh v. Slaubaugh466 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 1991)
  5. Ordway v. Superior Court198 Cal. App. 3d 98 (1988)
  6. South Carolina Railroad v. Nix68 Ga. 572 (1882)

Most recent

  1. Mercurio v. Nissan Motor Corp.81 F. Supp. 2d 859 (N.D. Ohio 2000)
  2. James v. City of Chester852 F. Supp. 1288 (D.S.C. 1994)
  3. Slaubaugh v. Slaubaugh466 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 1991)
  4. Ordway v. Superior Court198 Cal. App. 3d 98 (1988)
  5. Ginn v. Renaldo, Inc.359 S.E.2d 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)
  6. Devine v. Byrd667 F. Supp. 414 (N.D. Tex. 1982)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list