Deville v. Southern Pacific Railroad

50 Cal. 383
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1875·No. No. 3798·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

The act of the plaintiff in leaving his team unhitched, in close proximity to the track of the railroad, at a time when the train usually came, was negligence on his part in the first instance. When he subsequently, upon the arrival of the train, and" when the team was upon the track, attempted their rescue, he was guilty of additional negligence, which proximately contributed to the misfortune which he suffered.

We think the motion for the nonsuit should have been granted.

Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed, and cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Deville v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 50 Cal. 383 (Cal. 1875).

50 Cal. 383 (Deville v. Southern Pacific Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Henshaw v. Belyea
31 P.2d 348 (California Supreme Court, 1934)
In Re Estate of Prager
137 P. 37 (California Supreme Court, 1913)
Campbell v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.
121 N.W. 429 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1909)
Mitchell v. Union Terminal Railway Co.
122 Iowa 237 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Van Praag v. Gale
40 P. 555 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Higgins v. Wilmington City Railway Co.
15 Del. 352 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1895)
Moore v. Kansas City & Independence Rapid Transit Railway Co.
29 S.W. 9 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
Candelaria v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad
6 N.M. 266 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1891)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Eves
27 N.E. 580 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1891)
Redmond v. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg Railroad
10 N.Y.S. 330 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Clark
2 Ill. App. 116 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1878)
Fernandes v. Sacramento City Ry.
52 Cal. 45 (California Supreme Court, 1877)