Crisman v. Shreveport Belt Ry. Co.
Citations
- 110 La. 640
- 34 So. 718
- 62 L.R.A. 747
- 1902 La. LEXIS 192
Syllabus
<p>STREET RAILWAYS — INJURY TO PERSON ON TRACK — NEGLIGENCE—EVIDENCE.</p> <p>1. It is negligence, on the part of an electric railway company whose line traverses a city, to have one of its cars in the charge of a young man only 18 years old, whose experience in the handling of an electric car dates only 20 days back.</p> <p>2. For the shortcomings of such a motorman, in a case where the death of a human being has ensued, the car company will be held to the strictest accountability; and doubt as to whether the life of the deceased might not have been spared had the car been in the hands of a more experienced and more competent motorman will be construed against the car company.</p> <p>3. The situation having been that the street was one thoroughfare, with continuous pavement from curb to curb, the car track being in the center, the rails laid flush with the surface, and nothing setting them off from the rest of the street, and that as the car ran the deceased was riding on horseback somewhat ahead of the car, close enough to the track for his proximity to challenge attention (not so close, however, as to be within the line of danger), and that the car was gaining upon him, and that the street was somewhat crowded — held, first, it was not negligence under the circumstances not to have checked the speed of the car before the actual emergency had arisen; secondly, it was incumbent on the motorman, under the circumstances, to prepare for emergencies by turning off his current and winding the slack out of his brake, and the failure to do the latter was negligence.</p> <p>4. From the fact that the car was not stopped within the space within which it was possible to stop it, there arises an inference that the motorman was not. as prompt or as energetic as it was possible for a motorman to be, and this inference overcomes the statement of witnesses that the motorman did all that was possible to stop the car.</p> <p>Nicholls, C. J., and Monroe, J.; dissenting.</p> <p>(Syllab
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- no private right of action for violations of FINRA rules
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe, Nicholls, Provosty
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.