Majority
p. 802[Civ. No. 2056. First Appellate District. June 20, 1917.] MAUD M. FORDYCE, Appellant, v. L. M. SPIEGL, Respondent.
Headnote
Negligence—Personal Injuries.—Order denying a new trial affirmed on t'he authority of Kerner v. S-pieglj ante, p. 162.APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a new trial. A. E. Graupner, Judge.
The facts are identical with those stated in the case of Kerner v. Spiegl, ante, p. 162, [ 166 Pac. 1013 ].
Hamilton A. Báuer, for Appellant.
Walter H. Linforth, for Respondent.
The facts of this case are in all respects identical with the facts, in the case of Kerner v. Spiegl, ante, p. 162, [ 166 Pac. 1013 ], pending in this court, and this day decided, and the opinion in that case is equally applicable to the present one.
The order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is affirmed.
Beasly, J., pro tern., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on August 16, 1917.