Cloud v. Alexandria Electric Rys. Co.
Citations
- 121 La. 1061
- 46 So. 1017
- 1908 La. LEXIS 793
Syllabus
<p>1. Street Railroads — Injuries to Persons on Track — Negligence — Acts Constituting.</p> <p>A motorman of an electric street car who sees a child playing upon one of the sidewalks, and in the discharge of his duty to others, who, for auglit he knows, may be in danger, turns his eyes in another direction, is guilty of no negligence in failing to see the child leave the sidewalk and run in the direction of the approaching car, and where it appears that he saw the child a moment afterwards running towards the track, but too late to enable him to stop the car, though he did all that could then be done to stop it, the blame for the resulting tragedy cannot be laid at his door.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 44, Street Railroads, § 202.]</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>Where, in the case presented for decision, the evidence leaves no room for doubt that the motorman did all that the most competent motorman could have been expected to do to avert the accident, the question whether, under other circumstances, he would have done as much, or by reason of his youth and alleged inexperience would have been unequal to an emergency with which he might have been confronted, becomes irrelevant.</p> <p>3. Same — Competent Employes — Motormen.</p> <p>There appears to be nothing in the handling of an electric street car which, demands that a person, otherwise competent, should have more instruction and experience than may be acquired during four months’ service as conductor and one month’s service as motorman.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>A motorman should be cautious, alert, and physically capable. Alertness and physical capacity are as likely to be possessed by a youth of 17 as by an older person. Caution is, ordinarily, the attribute of age, and where, as in the position of motorman, caution is required, and human life depends upon its exercise, the employment of one who has not attained the age at which, by consensus of opinion, tbe judgment is sufficiently mature
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that “the use of permissive and hypothetical [contractual] language” does not support a construction that invalidates all discretion
- declining to find a fiduciary relationship between an agent and insured plaintiff because “Utah courts have reserved findings of fiduciary duties to relationships that evince a higher degree of trust than ordinary agency relationships.”
- declining to find a fiduciary relationship between an insurance agent and insured plaintiff because “Utah courts have reserved findings of fiduciary duties to relationships that evince a higher degree of trust than ordinary agency relationships.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.