Southside Passenger Railway Co. v. Cox
Citations
- 2 Monag. 140
- 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1357
Syllabus
<p>In an action against a street passenger railway company, to recover damages for personal injuries, caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, it appeared that, about three weeks before the accident, the company piled about a dozen rails in the gutter of a street at a point where there was no regular crossing, and the plaintiff tripped over one of the top rails which had become displaced,' and projected into the street. The court was requested to charge : “If the jury believe that there was light enough for the plaintiff to see the rails at the time the accident occurred, and the snow did not obscure the same, and the plaintiff could have avoided the pile by going around it or crossing the street at another point, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in not seeing said pile and avoiding the same, and therefore cannot recover.” The court refused to so charge, but left the question of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury. Held, after verdict and judgment for plaintiff, that the judgment should be affirmed.</p> <p>It seems that it is negligence for a street car company to take up old rails from their track, pile them in the gutter on the street, and leave them there for several weeks.</p> <p>In the above case, the court was requested to charge as follows, on the question of proximate cause : “ If the company’s employees and servants placed the rails in question in proper order side by side where the same were deposited in the gutter, and the accident occurred by reason of the subsequent displacement of one of the rails, without the agency of said company, and would not have occurred without such displacement, the company would notin that case be liable for the injury.” The Court: “Refused. It is for you to determine whether or not such displacement was a probable result of the original placing of the rails upon the street.” Held, no cause for reversal.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- shareholder who retains excessive control not entitled to limited liability
- no formal trust deed or agreement of partnership
- beneficiaries in a nominee trust hable in a breach of contract action on the grounds that “[t]he note of the company that [was] held by the [creditor] [did] not express a contract that the holder must look only to the funds or property of the company for its payment”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
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.