Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Company v. Leontine Rule

248 F.2d 756, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 343, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3867
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedOctober 17, 1957
Docket13815
StatusPublished

This text of 248 F.2d 756 (Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Company v. Leontine Rule) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Company v. Leontine Rule, 248 F.2d 756, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 343, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3867 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a judgment for the plaintiff in a suit for personal injuries suffered while the plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant’s train in Virginia. The court charged the jury that “As a common carrier the defendant railroad company was required by law to use the highest degree of care for the safe carrying of plaintiff as a passenger. This highest degree of care which the law places upon a common carrier does not make the common carrier an insurer of the passengers’ *757 safety but it does require that the common carrier shall exercise extraordinary vigilance for the purpose of protecting its passengers against injury * * * We disagree with the defendant’s contention that this imposed a higher standard of care than the Virginia rule, which is that “a common carrier must exercise the highest degree of practical care for the safety of its passengers * * *” Crist v. Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., 196 Va. 642, 645, 85 S.E.2d 213, 215. We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find jno error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Crist v. Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co.
85 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 F.2d 756, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 343, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-fredericksburg-potomac-railroad-company-v-leontine-rule-cadc-1957.