Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates

WILSON, Respondent, v. CUNNINGHAM and POTTER, Appellants

         Referred to the charge and views of the District Court.

         JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court. Wells, Justice, concurred.

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         In the case of railroads which are permanently established by law as a mode of conveyance, the rule is correctly stated by the respondent's counsel, that the conductors are only required to use the ordinary care pertaining to that description of business. But no reason exists for extending such a rule to the present case. Where the streets of a city, forming, as usual, thronged thoroughfares, are diverted from their ordinary and legitimate uses, by special license, to a private person, for his own benefit, and for the pursuit of a business which involves constant risk and danger, no other rule is consistent with the safety and protection of the community, than that which demands extraordinary care.

         Judgment affirmed

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Wilson v. Cunningham
(Jul 1, 1853)