Philips v. St. Charles Street Railroad
Citations
- 106 La. 592
Syllabus
<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>Where the motorneer of a street car, in answer to a signal, is slowing down his car, in order to stop it uith the rear platform over the proper crossing, and a passenger has taken his position on the lower step of the platform, preparatory to getting off. the fact that the passenger loses his balance and falls to the ground, it being claimed that such fall resulted from the sudden jerking of the car, and from the passenger catching his shoe in a defective step, will not justify the conclusion that such fall should be attributed to the negligence of the carrier, when it appears that the irregularity of motion complained of was not greater than is usual in the stopping of street cars and that the step was of an approved pattern and without discoverable defects.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that “per the terms of the agreement” the parties explicitly agreed that an “event of default” would not occur until defendant’s failure to comply “continue[d] for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice” of such failure was given by plaintiff
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe
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.