Wilson v. Cunningham
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. The plaintiff complained that the defendants were engaged in running cars by machinery along Battery Street in the city of San Francisco, and across Bush Street in the same city, upon a railroad, and for their own purposes, and that plaintiff was passing along said Bush Street and across Battery Street with a horse and wagon and divers goods, &c., when the defendants, with their said cars carelessly and negligently came into…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. The plaintiff complained that the defendants were engaged in running cars by machinery along Battery Street in the city of San Francisco, and across Bush Street in the same city, upon a railroad, and for their own purposes, and that plaintiff was passing along said Bush Street and across Battery Street with a horse and wagon and divers goods, &c., when the defendants, with their said cars carelessly and negligently came into collision with the said plaintiff and his wagon, &c., at the intersection of Bush with Battery Street aforesaid, with such force…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, Justice
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…
2Cited by3 opinions
- People ex rel. Teschemacher v. DavidsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- People v. DennisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- State v. Inhabitants of TrentonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1872