How has the court interpreted the "contemporaneous" requirement for a mother to be present at the scene of an explosion?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Thing v. LaChusa, 208 Cal.App.3d 555, 231 Cal.Rptr. 439 (Cal. App. 1986):
Similarly, in Archibald v. Braverman (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 253, 79 Cal.Rptr. 723, a boy was maimed by a gunpowder explosion and the court found the "contemporaneous" requirement satisfied because the mother was nearby and was at the scene immediately after the injury.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the prosecutor's statement that the jury's verdict must be based on the evidence presented in court? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the interpretation of a federal agency's interpretation of the California Civil Code? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the rule that prior determination is not conclusive either if injustice would result or if the public interest requires that the prior determination not to be foreclosed? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted voir dire in a murder case where the majority opinion said the law requires a finding of death where aggravation outweighs mitigation? (California, United States of America)
Does a quasi-judicial review of the evidence presented to the trial court to determine whether any triable issues of fact were presented? (California, United States of America)
How has section 69894.1 of the California Constitution been interpreted and interpreted by the courts? (California, United States of America)
Does the Court of Appeal have found that Defendant Joiner did not waive his assumed constitutional right to be personally present at the remand hearing and that the court erred in conducting that hearing in his absence? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the interpretation of a motor vehicle insurance contract in the context of an arbitration? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1018 of the California Criminal Code when a defendant makes a statement in open court that authorizes or adopts a motion to withdraw his plea? (California, United States of America)
