Southern Pac. Co. v. Hetzer
Citations
- 135 F. 272
- 1 L.R.A.N.S. 288
- 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4318
Syllabus
<p>1. Personal Injury—Damages—Mental Pain Separable prom Bodily Suppering Inadmissible.</p> <p>In actions for personal injury the plaintiff may recover for the bodily suffering and mental pain which are inseparable and which necessarily and inevitably result from the injury. But mortification and distress of mind from the contemplation of the crippled condition and of its effect upon the esteem of his fellows, that mental pain which is separable from the bodily suffering caused by the injury, is too remote, indefinite, and intangible to constitute an element of the damages in such a case, and evidence of it is inadmissible.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 15, Cent. Dig. Damages, §§ 100, 222, 255-259, 479.</p> <p>Mental suffering as an element of damages* see note to Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Caulfield, 11 C. C. A. 556.]</p> <p>2. Negligence—Duty op Master to Employ Competent Servants.</p> <p>It is the duty of the master to exercise reasonable care to employ competent servants, and, when he has exercised this care, this duty is discharged.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, § 336.] i</p> <p>8. Same—Duty op Master to Discharge Incompetent Servant.</p> <p>Another duty of the master is to discharge a servant when he knows or by the exercise of reasonable diligence would have known, that the servant has contracted the habit or character of negligence, of drunkenness, or of lack of skill, so that he is incompetent.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 342-346.]</p> <p>4. Same—Care Required to Ascertain Habits op Competent Servants— Presumption that Competent Servant Remains so.</p> <p>The diligence required of the master to learn the habits or characters of servants employed with due care is not of that degree demanded in his employment of servants or in his inspection of machinery, because careful and skillful men grow more careful and skillful, and the lega
Judges: Eochren, Hook, Sanborn
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States Smelting Co. v. ParryEighth Circuit· 1909-01-06· cited 97×
- Shandrew v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1905-11-13· cited 27×
- Harrington v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1920-07-07· cited 25×
- Avery v. WardSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1996-12-16· cited 24×
- Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. MooreEighth Circuit· 1909-01-07· cited 21×
- Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. EganEighth Circuit· 1908-03-14· cited 15×
- The EltonThird Circuit· 1906-01-02· cited 13×
- Shellaberger v. FisherEighth Circuit· 1906-03-02· cited 13×
- Cryder v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1907-03-19· cited 11×
- Patterson v. BlattiSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1916-05-05· cited 10×
- United States Express Co. v. WahlSixth Circuit· 1909-03-17· cited 9×
- Shortridge v. Scarritt Estate Co.Missouri Court of Appeals· 1910-06-28· cited 8×
- Bonelli v. BranciereMississippi Supreme Court· 1921-10-15· cited 7×
- Southern Pac. Co. v. GloydEighth Circuit· 1905-04-15· cited 7×
- Bowan v. Western Union Telegraph Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa· 1907-01-04· cited 6×
- Daisy Philippine Underwear Co. v. United States Steel Products Co.S.D. New York· 1935-04-16· cited 4×
- Duke v. St. Louis & S. F. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas· 1909-07-20· cited 4×
- R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. NewbyNinth Circuit· 1946-02-28· cited 3×
- Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. LundbergNinth Circuit· 1910-02-14· cited 2×
- Otis Elevator Co. v. LuckNinth Circuit· 1913-02-03· cited 2×
Cites
43 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court· 1892-04-04· cited 863×
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. BehymerSupreme Court· 1903-04-20· cited 332×
- Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf R. R. v. McDadeSupreme Court· 1903-11-02· cited 296×
- Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. McDadeSupreme Court· 1890-05-19· cited 259×
- Kennon v. GilmerSupreme Court· 1889-05-13· cited 203×
- Northern Pacific Railroad v. BabcockSupreme Court· 1894-05-26· cited 191×
- Mayor of New-York v. BaileyNew York Supreme Court· 1845-12-15· cited 180×
- Wabash Railway Co. v. McDanielsSupreme Court· 1883-05-18· cited 159×
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. DanielsSupreme Court· 1894-04-16· cited 138×
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. BarrettSupreme Court· 1897-04-19· cited 121×
- Sappenfield v. Main Street & Agricultural Park RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-09-05· cited 98×
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Allen's Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama· 1885-12-15· cited 57×
- Western Stone Co. v. WhalenIllinois Supreme Court· 1894-06-19· cited 49×
- Probst v. . DelamaterNew York Court of Appeals· 1885-10-30· cited 48×
- Berns v. Graston Gas Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court· 1885-12-05· cited 40×
- Johnson v. Wells, Fargo & Co.Nevada Supreme Court· 1870-10-15· cited 38×
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. StupakIndiana Supreme Court· 1890-01-07· cited 37×
- Hoffman v. DickinsonWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1888-02-28· cited 34×
- Hatt v. NayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1887-03-17· cited 33×
- Sherwood v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court· 1890-10-10· cited 28×
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.