Sneed v. Moorehead

70 Miss. 690
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1893·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Campbell, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The declaration does not show liability of the defendants for the injury suffered by the plaintiff-. They were under no obligation to have railing, or other protection, around the “ gallery.” The possibility that some one might fall off, was not sufficient-to suggest that a railing should be put there. The situation was known to the plaintiff, and the necessity for caution had presented itself to her, as shown by her putting the light so as to guide her on her return to her room. Her error, resulting in serious hurt, consisted in going on when she found the light gone. Her misfortune is deplored, but reparation cannot be made by despoiling the defendants, who were under no greater obligation to have railing around galleries than other persons who have galleries, and invite visitors to their houses.

Affirmed.

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

Sneed v. Moorehead, 70 Miss. 690 (Mich. 1893).

70 Miss. 690 (Sneed v. Moorehead) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Early v. Lowe
195 S.E. 852 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1938)
Baker v. Butterworth
89 S.E. 849 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1916)
Scholl v. Belcher
127 P. 968 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1912)
Clancy v. Barker
131 F. 161 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
Clancy v. Barker
98 N.W. 440 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1904)