Healy v. Visalia & Tulare R.R.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The court erred in allowing the witness Ashmead to testify as to whether it was possible for a person sitting in the position Mrs. Healy was in to stand the force of the jars and still retain her seat upon the cars, as it called for the opinion of the witness, and for a like reason it was error for the court to allow testimony of the witness that he thought the car was too narrow for the track. (Sappenfield v. Main St. etc. B. B. Co., 91 Cal.…
1Opinion of the Court
Harrison, J.—
The plaintiffs are husband and wife, and on the 20th of May, 1890, took passage with the defendant, to be carried over its railroad from Visalia to the city of Tulare. At about a mile before reaching Tulare there was a washout in the track of the defendant, and some passengers, including the plaintiffs, were transferred from the car in which they had been carried to a hand-car, by which the defendant undertook to carry them to Tulare. Mrs. Healy took her seat upon the forward end of the hand-car, with her feet hanging *589down towards the track, and after they had gone some distance…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
- Tell v. GibsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Kelley v. RichardsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by35 opinions
- Mann v. CracchioloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- People v. McAlpinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Southern Ry. Co. v. DicksonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- People v. SpriggsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Brown v. ColmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.