Swift & Co. v. Sandy

Citations

• 165 F. 622
• 92 C.C.A. 56
• 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4792

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence (§ 4*) — “Ordinary Care” — ‘•Reasonable Prudence.”</p> <p>The terms, “ordinary care” and “reasonable prudence,” as applied to the conduct and affairs of men, have a relative significance, and cannot be arbitrarily defined. What may be “ordinary care” in one ease may, under different surroundings and circumstances, be gross negligence.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. § 6; Dec. Dig. § 4*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, pp. 5029-5042; vol. 8, pp. 7739, 7740; vol. 7, p. 5976.]</p> <p>2. Negligence (§ 136*) — Questions for Court or Jury.</p> <p>When, under a given state of facts, reasonable men may fairly differ on the question as to whether there was negligence or not, the determination of the matter is for the jury.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. § 298; Dec. Dig. § 136.*]</p> <p>3. Municipal Corporations (§ 62*) — Streets—Negligent Use — Injuries— Fright.</p> <p>Where plaintiff fell in the street and was injured In endeavoring to save herself from imminent bodily harm by collision with defendant’s team, negligently driven around a corner, and approaching her as she was crossing the street, and the fright which preceded and accompanied plaintiff’s fall was only such as would usually be associated with the hurried effort to avoid impending danger, a contention that plaintiff was so frightened or bewildered that she collapsed, and that her fall resulted from fright caused by defendant’s negligence, for which she could not recover, was unsustainable.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.- — For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Dec. Dig. 5 62.*]</p>