Smith v. City Railway Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah.: Hartwell Hurley, Judge. This is an action by Mrs. Sarah Smith to recover damages for an injury caused by the alleged negligence of the City and Suburban Railway Company in the operation and management of one of its electric cars. The defendant’s car line on Morrison Street, in the City of Portland, consists of two tracks about four feet apart. The cars going east use the south, and those going west the north track.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah.: Hartwell Hurley, Judge. This is an action by Mrs. Sarah Smith to recover damages for an injury caused by the alleged negligence of the City and Suburban Railway Company in the operation and management of one of its electric cars. The defendant’s car line on Morrison Street, in the City of Portland, consists of two tracks about four feet apart. The cars going east use the south, and those going west the north track. On August eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, the plaintiff boarded an east bound car, intending to ride to Union Avenue, her destination being a point…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bean.
1. The plaintiff claims and alleges that her injury was caused by the negligence of defendant in running its cars at a dangerous and unlawful rate of speed, in not giving timely signals of its approach to the street crossings, and in not providing the car with suitable brakes. The defendant denies these allegations of negligence on its part, and avers that the injury was caused solely by the plaintiff’s own negligence in attempting to cross the track without looking or listening for the approaching car. *542There was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the question…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Creamer v. West End Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Fenton v. . Second Avenue Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Carson v. Federal Street & Pleasant Valley Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Buzby v. Philadelphia Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Sheets v. Connolly Street Railway, &c., Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Ames v. Waterloo & Cedar Falls Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Choquette v. Key System Transit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
- Chesley v. Waterloo, Cedar Falls & Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
- Jacobson v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1922
- Hornstein v. United Railways Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.