Marshall v. Maryland, Delaware, & Virginia Railway Co.

112 A. 526, 31 Del. 170, 1 W.W. Harr. 170, 1921 Del. LEXIS 5
CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
DecidedFebruary 22, 1921
DocketCase No. 9
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 112 A. 526 (Marshall v. Maryland, Delaware, & Virginia Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marshall v. Maryland, Delaware, & Virginia Railway Co., 112 A. 526, 31 Del. 170, 1 W.W. Harr. 170, 1921 Del. LEXIS 5 (Del. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The substantial question raised by the pleadings is whether the defendant company entered into an agree[173]*173ment with the plaintiffs by which the company should be exempt from any liability for damage to the buildings and property which it let to the plaintiffs, although the damage should be occasioned by the negligence of the company, or its employees. An exemption from liability for damages in consequence of negligence as part of the consideration for such an agreement is valid in a case like this. The language of the provision set out in the plea, exempting the defendant company from claims for damages is obviously ambiguous. Clearly exemption from liability for negligence or from fire is not expressed in the provision. If it was the intention of the parties that the provision should secure to the defendant company the exemption claimed for it in this action, it should appear from the language of the provision fairly interpreted; for such immunity cannot rest upon a presumption or strained construction of the provision.

It is the opinion of the court that the language of the provision is not sufficiently specific to relieve the defendant company from liability for damages to the said buildings and personal property therein of the plaintiffs, if occasioned by the defendant company in the manner as alleged in the declaration of the plaintiffs.

The demurrer is sustained.

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

Related

Fina, Inc. v. Arco
200 F.3d 266 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
James v. GETTY OIL CO.(EAST. OPERATIONS)
472 A.2d 33 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1984)
J. A. Jones Construction Co. v. City of Dover
372 A.2d 540 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1977)
Rock v. Delaware Electric Cooperative, Inc.
328 A.2d 449 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1974)
Powell v. Interstate Vendaway, Inc.
300 A.2d 241 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1972)
Blum v. Kauffman
297 A.2d 48 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1972)
Smith v. Berwin Builders, Inc.
287 A.2d 693 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1972)
Sannit v. Aarons
297 F. Supp. 798 (D. Delaware, 1969)
Wilmington Housing Authority v. Williamson Ex Rel. Williamson
228 A.2d 782 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1967)
Hollingsworth v. Chrysler Corporation
208 A.2d 61 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1965)
Delaware Power & Light Co. v. Mayor of Wilmington
200 A.2d 840 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1964)
Altemus v. Pennsylvania Railroad
210 F. Supp. 834 (D. Delaware, 1962)
Pan American World Airways Inc. v. United Aircraft Corp.
163 A.2d 582 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1960)
Metropolitan Paving Co. v. Gordon Herkenhoff & Associates, Inc.
341 P.2d 460 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1959)
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Chicago Packaged Fuel Co.
195 F.2d 467 (Seventh Circuit, 1952)
Smoke v. Turner Const. Co.
54 F. Supp. 369 (D. Delaware, 1944)
Southern Pacific Co. v. Layman
145 P.2d 295 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1943)
Missouri District Telegraph Co. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
93 S.W.2d 19 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1936)
United States v. Wallace
18 F.2d 20 (Ninth Circuit, 1927)
Wallace v. United States
16 F.2d 309 (W.D. Washington, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 A. 526, 31 Del. 170, 1 W.W. Harr. 170, 1921 Del. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-maryland-delaware-virginia-railway-co-delsuperct-1921.