Legal Opinion

Erie R. Co. v. Murphy

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided November 16, 1925No. 65PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOUGH, Circuit Judge'

(after. stating the facts as above).

The uncontradieted facts adduced by both sides of this controversy presented a situation from which a jury could infer negligence. ' The ease is one of a recognized class “where the circumstances of the occurrence (causing injury) are of a character to give ground for a reasonable inference that, if due care had been employed,” what is popularly called an accident would not have happened. Central, etc., Co. v. Peluso (C. C. A.) 286 F. 661; Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U. S. 233, 33 S. Ct. 416, 57 L. Ed. 815, Ann. Cas. 1914D; 905.

• It is…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Sweeney v. ErvingSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  3. Rose v. Stephens & Condit Transp. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1882
  4. The RamblerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
  5. Central R. v. PelusoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. CorbySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
  2. Noce v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  3. Ice Service Company v. ScruggsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955
  4. Kulack v. the Pearl JackDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1948
  5. Schroble v. Lehigh Valley R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API