This appeal questions the correctness of a summary judgment entered in favor of four defendants in this personal injury action. The determinative issue is whether, under the evidence presented on the motion, foreseeability remains a question of fact for the jury. (See Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975)
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
BIGBEE v. PACIFIC TEL. & TEL. CO.
Docket No. L.A. 31613.
34 Cal.3d 49 (1983)
665 P.2d 947
192 Cal. Rptr. 857
CHARLES BIGBEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Supreme Court of California.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
June 23, 1983.
June 23, 1983.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Binder & Cacciatore and Thomas P. Cacciatore for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Robert M. Ralls, Bart Kimball, Waters, McCluskey & Corcoran, Laurence R. Corcoran, Lawler, Felix & Hall, J. Richard Morrissey, Mark V. Berry, Steven J. Miller, John E. Carlson, Springer, Heath, Henrickson & Murry and William C. Heath for Defendants and Respondents.
Supreme Court of California.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
