Wilson v. Cunningham

3 Cal. 241
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 3 Cal. 241 (Wilson v. Cunningham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wilson v. Cunningham, 3 Cal. 241 (Cal. 1853).

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.

In the case of railroads which are permanently established by law as a mode of conveyance, the rule is correctly stated by the respondent’s counsel, that the conductors are only required to use the ordinary care pertaining to that description of business. But no reason exists for extending such a rule to the present case., ^Where the streets of a city, forming, as usual, thronged thoroughfares, are diverted from their ordinary and legitimate uses, by special license, to a private person, for his own benefit, and for the pursuit of a business which involves constant risk and danger, no other rule is consistent with the safety and protection of the community, than that which demands extraordinary care.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Inhabitants of Trenton
36 N.J.L. 79 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1872)
People ex rel. Teschemacher v. Davidson
30 Cal. 379 (California Supreme Court, 1866)
People v. Dennis
1 Cal. Unrep. 262 (California Supreme Court, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Cal. 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-cunningham-cal-1853.