Wilson v. Cunningham
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
Defendants were owners of a private railroad, constructed by them, and run with \\ machinery under a license from the city councils, through certain streets of San Francisco. The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries done to himself, his horse, and wagon, in a collision with the railroad cars, charging the defendants with negligence. Held, that where the streets of a city are diverted from their ordinary and legitimate uses by special license to a private person for his own benefit, and in the pursuit of a business Which involves constant risk and danger, he is bound, in the. exercise of such right to'use extraordinary care.
Heydenfeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.
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.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)