Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)

Citation: Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Parent Document: Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1985-04-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1172788/becker-v-irm-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,041 chars

The duty to inspect should charge the defendant only with those matters which would have been disclosed by a reasonable inspection. In the instant case, the undisputed affidavits are to the effect that there was “no visible difference between the tempered and untempered glass in terms of visible appearance,” but that there was a “very small mark” in the corner of each piece of glass which apparently showed that the glass was untempered. The glass was not before the trial court when it granted the motion for summary judgment, and the record does not disclose the nature of the “mark.” If the “mark” was “untempered” a trier of fact could properly conclude that a reasonable inspection would have, at least, included a visual inspection which disclosed the danger. In resolving doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment (Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d 108, 111), defendant’s failure to fully identify the “mark” requires us to assume that it would have disclosed the danger to a reasonable inspection.

Other Sections in This Document (238)

Full Text