Morgan v. Cockrell
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Kirby, J.,
(after stating the facts). The trial court appears to have had an erroneous view of the degree of care required of appellant in the maintenance and operation of its light wires for giving service to the city, as shown in instruction No. 1, which stated that it “owed the public a high degree of care,” and that, if the defendant “failed to exercise a high degree of care,” etc., and the deceased was injured “while in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety,” plaintiff should recover, apparently requiring the use of a higher degree of care of the appellant than ordinary care,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. DeselmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. SlaughterIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
- City Electric Street Railway Co. v. ConerySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Pulaski Gas Light Co. v. McClintockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. CatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Stacks v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
- Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. LumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953
- Southwestern Gas Electric Company v. DeshazoSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
- Clark v. Transcontinental InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2004
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.