Needham v. San Francisco & San José R.R.

Citations

• 37 Cal. 409

Syllabus

<p>Damages where Both Parties are to Blame.—The reason why the law does not hold the defendant responsible for damages where the plaintiff has by his negligence or wrongful act contributed to the result complained of, is, not that the wrong of the plaintiff justifies or excuses the defendant, but because it is impossible to apportion damages between the parties; and wherever this impossibility does not exist, the defendant's exemption from liability does not exist.</p> <p>Idem.—Tlio rule releasing the defendant from responsibility for damages, in cases where tho plaintiff by his negligence or wrong contributed to the result, is confined to cases where tho act of the plaintiff is the proximate cause of the injury. Proximate cause means negligence at the time the injury happened.</p> <p>Justifying one Wrong by another.—No more in law than in morals can ono wrong ho justified or excused by another.</p> <p>Liability for Injury to a Wrongdoer. —A person is hound to conduct himself with reasonable care and prudence towards a wrongdoer, and if he can so conduct himself and docs not, he is liable if injury is sustained by the latter.</p> <p>Injury to Animals by Railroad Company.—If the plaintiff is guilty of negligence or even of possible wrong in placing his animals on a railroad track, yet the railroad company are bound to exercise reasonable care and diligence in the use of their road; and if for want of that caro tho animals are injured, the company is liable. In such case tho company is also bound to use reasonable care and diligence in removing the animals.*</p> <p>Negligence.—Negligence is not absolute or intrinsic, but always relative to some circumstance of time, place, or person.</p>