TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McDaniels v. George Sell Baking & Confectionery Co.

McDaniels v. George Sell Baking & Confectionery Company

McDaniels v. George Sell Baking & Confectionery Co., 68 Colo. 202 (1920)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Colorado · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1920
Docket
No. 9493
Judges
Burke
Citations
68 Colo. 202
Headnotes
Practice in Error — Non-Suit. Evidence sufficient to go to the jury-having been submitted by plaintiff a judgment of non-suit was held error and reversed.
Summary
Error to Denver District Court, Hon. Julian H. Moore, Judge.

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

Opinion of the Court — Burke

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

Mr. Justice Burke

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff in error brought this action against defendants in error for damages alleged to have been sustained by the death of her son, Harley McDaniels, ten years of age, who was thrown from his bicycle and killed in one of the alleys of said defendant city. Plaintiff alleged that defendant company, in violation of the city ordinances, had placed obstructions in the alley through which the boy was riding, which obstructions were the proximate cause of his death, and that the defendant city knowingly, carelessly and negligently permitted said obstructions to be so placed and there to remain. At the close of plaintiff’s testimony *203 motions for non-suit were filed by both defendants and sustained by the court, and such further proceedings thereafter had that this cause is now regularly before us for review on error. It is only necessary here to determine whether there was such evidence introduced on behalf of plaintiff as required the submission of this cause to the jury.

No summary of the evidence could serve any good purpose here, or be used as a guide in. future litigation. Neither is there occasion for a re-statement of the well established and uncontroverted legal principles which must be applied. It is only necessary to say that we have examined this entire record, including the original bill of exceptions, with great care, and are clearly convinced that there was sufficient evidence introduced in this case to go to the jury, and that the sustaining of the motions for non-suit was error. • The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded.

Garrigues, C. J. and Teller, J. concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1927: 11929: 21957: 119272026peak 1929 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Arps v. City & County of Denver257 P. 1094 (Colo. 1927)
  2. Buchholz v. Union Pacific Railroad Company311 P.2d 717 (Colo. 1957)
  3. Goody-Courter Coal Co. v. Connor274 P. 739 (Colo. 1929)
  4. Campbell v. Stamper Drug Co.277 P. 770 (Colo. 1929)

Most recent

  1. Buchholz v. Union Pacific Railroad Company311 P.2d 717 (Colo. 1957)
  2. Campbell v. Stamper Drug Co.277 P. 770 (Colo. 1929)
  3. Goody-Courter Coal Co. v. Connor274 P. 739 (Colo. 1929)
  4. Arps v. City & County of Denver257 P. 1094 (Colo. 1927)

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