Montijo v. Swift
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | COUGHLIN; GRIFFIN P. J., and BROWN, GERALD |
| Citation | 219 Cal.App.2d 351,33 Cal.Rptr. 133 |
| Parties | Antonia P. MONTIJO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Kenneth SWIFT, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 6986. |
| Decision Date | 14 August 1963 |
Page 133
v.
Kenneth SWIFT, Defendant and Respondent.
Hearing Denied Oct. 9, 1963.
McCarthy & Pollock, Mark P. Robinson, Los Angeles, and Linley, Duffy & Smith, El Cajon, for plaintiff and appellant.
Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent.
Page 134
COUGHLIN, Justice.
In this action the plaintiff, appellant herein, recovered judgment against the defendant Swift, respondent herein, following a trial by jury and a verdict in her favor. Thereafter the defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. Both of these motions were granted. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment thereafter entered and from the order granting a new trial.
The plaintiff sought to recover damages for injuries sustained when she fell while descending a stairway in a bus depot; claimed that the injuries received as a result of her fall were caused by the negligent construction of the stairway in that the handrails attached to the adjoining tile walls [219 Cal.App.2d 352] thereof did not extend to the bottom of the stairs and the tiles on those walls were set at such an angle that in descending the stairway it appeared that the bottom of the stairs was at a place which, in fact, was a step above the bottom; and contended that the defendant Swift was liable for damages on account thereof because he was the architect who designed and supervised the construction of the stairway.
A separate action by the plaintiff against the bus company that maintained the depot was consolidated for trial with the instant action and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, a judgment thereon, an order denying the bus company's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a further order granting its motion for a new trial. Appeals were taken from these orders, which were affirmed in an opinion filed by this court, this day, in Montijo v. Western Greyhound Lines, Cal.App., 33 Cal.Rptr. 184, to which reference is made for a more detailed statement of the facts and pertinent portions of the evidence. For the reasons stated in that opinion, any contention that the instant order granting the motion of the defendant Swift for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be affirmed because the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horton v. Goldminer's Daughter, No. 870031
...that the architect in that case was not liable because the defect was not latent. Other courts followed. See, e.g., Montijo v. Swift, 219 Cal.App.2d 351, 33 Cal.Rptr. 133, 134-35 (1963); Laukkanen v. Jewel Tea Co., 78 Ill.App.2d 153, 161-63, 222 N.E.2d 584, 588-89 In response to these and s......
-
Johnson v. Equipment Specialists, Inc., No. 13948
...makes a chattel for the use of others." Several jurisdictions have adopted section 385, or a similar rule. (Montijo v. Swift (1963), 219 Cal.App.2d 351, 33 Cal.Rptr. 133; Hunter v. Quality Homes (1949), 6 Terry 100, 45 Del. 100, 68 A.2d 620; Hanna v. Fletcher (1956), 97 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 23......
-
Klein v. Catalano
...matter of law. 7 See Inman v. Binghamton Hous. Page 520 Auth., 3 N.Y.2d 137, 164 N.Y.S.2d 699, 143 N.E.2d 895 (1957); Montijo v. Swift, 219 Cal.App.2d 351, 33 Cal.Rptr. 133 (1963). See also 1968 Sen.Rep.No. 1050, A Statute of Limitations for Malpractice Against Architects, Engineers and Sur......
-
Yarbro v. Hilton Hotels Corp., No. 80SA274
...See, e.g., Inman v. Binghamton Housing Authority, 3 N.Y.2d 137, 143 N.E.2d 895, 164 N.Y.S.2d 699 (1957); Montijo v. Swift, 219 Cal.App.2d 351, 33 Cal.Rptr. 133 (1963); compare, MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916); see also, Brown, Building Contractors' Liabilit......
-
Horton v. Goldminer's Daughter, No. 870031
...that the architect in that case was not liable because the defect was not latent. Other courts followed. See, e.g., Montijo v. Swift, 219 Cal.App.2d 351, 33 Cal.Rptr. 133, 134-35 (1963); Laukkanen v. Jewel Tea Co., 78 Ill.App.2d 153, 161-63, 222 N.E.2d 584, 588-89 In response to these and s......
-
Johnson v. Equipment Specialists, Inc., No. 13948
...makes a chattel for the use of others." Several jurisdictions have adopted section 385, or a similar rule. (Montijo v. Swift (1963), 219 Cal.App.2d 351, 33 Cal.Rptr. 133; Hunter v. Quality Homes (1949), 6 Terry 100, 45 Del. 100, 68 A.2d 620; Hanna v. Fletcher (1956), 97 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 23......
-
Klein v. Catalano
...matter of law. 7 See Inman v. Binghamton Hous. Page 520 Auth., 3 N.Y.2d 137, 164 N.Y.S.2d 699, 143 N.E.2d 895 (1957); Montijo v. Swift, 219 Cal.App.2d 351, 33 Cal.Rptr. 133 (1963). See also 1968 Sen.Rep.No. 1050, A Statute of Limitations for Malpractice Against Architects, Engineers and Sur......
-
Yarbro v. Hilton Hotels Corp., No. 80SA274
...See, e.g., Inman v. Binghamton Housing Authority, 3 N.Y.2d 137, 143 N.E.2d 895, 164 N.Y.S.2d 699 (1957); Montijo v. Swift, 219 Cal.App.2d 351, 33 Cal.Rptr. 133 (1963); compare, MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916); see also, Brown, Building Contractors' Liabilit......