Hearne v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1875) · DecisionDepot

Hearne v. Southern Pacific Railroad

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1875 No. No. 3821Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that the plaintiff could not recover if the deceased's own lack of ordinary care contributed to the injury.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of contributory negligence.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court seems to have repudiated the rule that if deceased, by his own negligence, amounting to want of ordinary care, contributed to the injury complained of, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.”

“Judgment reversed and cause remanded.”

Synopsis

Damages eob Iwuby by B Amito ad.—A person crossing the track of a railroad upon a public highway is bound to exercise proper care to avoid the cars of the railroad company; and if he does not do so, and for that reason is injured, and by the exercise of such care could have avoided the danger, he cannot recover damages.

Idem.—If a person, while crossing the track of a railroad on a public highway, is injured by a passing train, his negligence, if it contributes at all to the injury, contributes directly and proximately.

By the Court: The District Court refused the following instruction :' “The deceased was required to exercise proper care, as well as the defendant and its servants, and if, by the exercise of such care, the deceased could have avoided the danger, he was guilty of negligence, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.” The foregoing and other like instructions, asked for by the defendant, but refused at the trial, should have been given to the jury.

The court seems to have repudiated the rule that if deceased, by his own negligence, amounting to want of ordinary care, contributed to the injury complained of, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. (Robinson v. W. P. R. R. Co., 48 Cal. 424.)

From the circumstances of the case it is perfectly manifest that, if the negligence of the deceased contributed at. all, it contributed directly and proximately to the injury. Needham v. San Jose, etc. (37 Cal. 409), therefore, does not apply.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Hearne v. Southern Pacific Railroad

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief