Cross v. Cal. St. Cable Ry.

Citations

• 102 Cal. 313
• 36 P. 673
• 1894 Cal. LEXIS 640

Syllabus

<p>Contributory Negligence.—Contributory negligence sufficient in law to defeat a recovery for an injury caused by the negligence of the defendant must be such negligence as directly contributes to the accident.</p> <p>Id.—Question of Fact—Descent of Hill—Collision of Wagon With Street-car-tBroken Lock Chain.—It is not negligence as matter of law for the driver of a heavy wagon to attempt to descend a hill after the breaking of the lock chain near the top of the hill, by zigzagging in and out within a narrow space between the sidewalk and a streetcar track; and if a collision occurs between the wagon and the dummy of the street-car, whereby the driver of the wagon is injured while walking beside the wagon, it is a question of fact for the jury to determine whether the driver, as an ordinarily careful and prudent man, was justified in attempting to make the descent under the circumstances.</p> <p>Id.—Presence of Party Injured Upon Track.—It is not negligence in law for a party injured by collision between a wagon and street-car to be upon the street-car track at the moment of the accident, where it appears that he could see the track for a distance of a hundred feet and saw no car, although, owing to a steep grade and a wet track, the car could not be stopped within a distance of a hundred feet, after an alarm; but under such circumstances the question of contributory negligence is one of fact to be submitted to the jury.</p> <p>Id.—Failure of Driver to Look.—Where the driver of the wagon as a reasonable man may have thought that he would be able to leave the track before the car would be actually upon him, his failure to look up the hill to see whether or not a car was coming at a distance of more than a hundred feet, cannot be said to have necessarily contributed to the accident.</p>