Falvey v. Hamelburg

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “There was no evidence that the defendant could have seen the plaintiff for more than an instant, if at all, before the impact.”
• violation of a statute, while evidence of negligence, does not make a case for the jury without proof that it was causally connected to the injury
• “Negligence does not operate in a vacuum. Legal consequences result from it if, but only if, the negligence is causally related to the harm complained of”
• \To say that the violation of law involved in operating an improperly registered automobile is evidence of negligence does not necessarly mean that there is a case for the jury. There is still the question of causation to consider\
• “To say that the violation of law involved in operating an improp erly registered automobile is evidence of negligence does not necessarly mean that there is a case for the jury. There is still the question of causation to consider”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).