Fisher v. Southern Pacific Railroad
Citations
- 89 Cal. 399
- 26 P. 894
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 828
Syllabus
<p>Negligence — Coupling Cars upon Mixed Train — Duty op Railroad Company — Care — Skill — Instruction. — In an action against a railroad company for damages for injuries received by a passenger upon a mixed passenger and freight train, through the alleged negligence of the servants of the company in coupling the cars, an instruction to the jury, asked by the plaintiff, in the language of section 2100 of the Civil Code, “ that a railroad company carrying passengers paying fare must use the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage, and must provide everything necessary for that purpose,” iiPnot erroneous because of the omission of the concluding words of the section, “andmust exercise, to that end, a reasonable degree of skill.”</p> <p>Id. —Construction op Code — Diligence Required upon Mixed Train — Requirement of Skill. — Section 2100 of the Civil Code, which provides that a railroad company carrying passengers paying fare must use the utmost care and diligence, and must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must exercise, to that end, a reasonable degree of skill, applies to all trains carrying passengers for hire; and in operating a train regularly carrying freight and passengers, the company is liable for the full degree of diligeuce enjoined by the statute; but the concluding provision requires, in add tion to diligence, skill only in providing what is necessary to the safe carriage of passengers, and does not prohibit the use of a freight train for that purpose-.</p> <p>Id. ■—Conditions of Running Freight Train —Province op Jury —Negligence in Coupling Cars. — The different conditions attending the running of a freight train are proper to be considered by the jury in determining whether there has been negligence in coupling the cars, and they may consider the fact, if it be so, that in the coupling of loaded freight-cars violent jerks and jars are likely to occur and might happen without negligence.</p> <p>Id. — Assumption op Risk by Pass
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- It was harmless error to admit the portions of the Appellant’s custodial interrogation that followed his alleged invocation of his right to remain silent, because his subsequent statements were reaffirmations of his “previous unobjected-to statements.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Haven, Temple
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.