Redington v. Pac. Postal Tel. Cable Co.
Citations
- 107 Cal. 317
- 40 P. 432
- 1895 Cal. LEXIS 753
Syllabus
<p>Telegraph Company—Stipulation Against Liability—Gross Negligence—Burden op Proop.—A telegraph company may reasonably stipulate upon its message blanks that it will not be liable to the sender of an unrepeated message for mistake or delay beyond the amount received for sending the same, unless it is guilty of willful misconduct or gross negligence; and the burden of proving willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the telegraph company devolves upon the sender of the telegram, and is not in the face of the stipulation to be presumed from the mere fact of a mistake, but must be proven by independent facts, or by circumstances connected with the principal fact, and warranting the conclusion of willful misconduct or gross negligence.</p> <p>Id.—Definition op Gross Negligence.—Gross negligence is the want of slight care or diligence, and is either an entire failure to exercise care, or the exercise of so slight a degree of care as to justify the belief that there was indifference as to the interest and welfare of others.</p> <p>Id.,—Negligence, When a Question por Jury—Nonsuit.—The question of negligence is a mixed question of law and fact; and where there is room for difference of opinion between reasonable men as to the existence of facts from which negligence may be inferred, or room for difference as to the inference which might be drawn from facts, the question of negligence is for the jury, and the court in such case does not err in denying a motion for nonsuit.</p> <p>Id.—Attachment by Telegraph—Damages for Unrepeated Telegram. —Support of Verdict.—Where an attachment for the sum of §1,903 was sent by telegraph, and the telegram was negligently made to read §903, and as the result of the error the sender of the message was damaged in the amount of the attachment levy, a verdict and judgment for damages in the amount lost by the error will not be reversed where there is sufficient evidence to show a prima facie case of gross negligence, notwithstand
Judges: Searls
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.