Skip to main content
· 6/28/1895

Judson v. Giant Powder Co.

Citations

  • 107 Cal. 549
  • 40 P. 1020
  • 1895 Cal. LEXIS 792

Syllabus

<p>Negligence—Explosion op Dynamite — Destruction op Premises op Grantor—Maxim.—Where a powder company is charged with negligence in the use of dynamite upon its premises, whereby an explosion was caused resulting in the destruction of the plaintiff’s property, the fact that the plaintiff sold the premises where the explosion occurred for the purpose of a dynamite factory is not material, and the maxim, Volenti non fit injuria, does not apply to the case.</p> <p>Id.—Rights op Grantor—Oare op Grantee—Assumption op Risk.— In making a grant of premises for the purpose of a dynamite factory the grantor has a right to assume that due care will be exercised in the conduct of the business, and has a right to demand that such care be exercised; and the grantor does not assume the risk of explosions caused by the negligent acts of the owner of the powder works by continuing to do business near their locality after being served with notice of the danger that surrounds the manufacture of dynamite.</p> <p>Id.—Presumption op Negligence prom Fact op Explosion.—Negligence is prima facie presumed from the fact of the explosion of a nitro-glycerine factory, in the absence of evidence showing care on the part of the employees.</p> <p>Id.—Accident out op Ordinary Course—Contractual Relation not Necessary.—When a thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care, and no question of contractual relation forms an element in such a case.</p> <p>Id.—Expert Evidence.—The prima fade case of negligence arising from the fact of the explosion is strengthened and made complete by expert testimony to the effect that, if the factory was properly conducted and the employees were careful during the process of manufactu

How courts have described this case

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

  • saying that under Gosha , \we have no option other than to\ hold that venue for the defendant's conviction for selling intoxicating liquor was not sufficiently proved by evidence that he sold a man whiskey after the man saw the defendant \sitting on the side of the road in Jasper county\
  • saying that under Gosha, “we have no option other than to” hold that venue for the defendant’s conviction for selling intoxicating liquor was not sufficiently proved by evidence that he sold a man whiskey after the man saw the defendant “sitting on the side of the road in Jasper county”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Garoutte

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.