Strong v. Sacramento & Placerville Railroad
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order refusing a new trial in the Superior Court of Sacramento County. Denson, J. The instructions referred to in the opinion are inserted in the syllabus. A petition for hearing in bank was filed in this case after judgment, and denied.
1Opinion of the Court
McKinstry, J.:
There was certainly a very substantial conflict in the evidence with reference to negligence on the part of the defendant, and the court below denied a motion for a new trial.
The question whether plaintiff was so plainly guilty of contributory negligence as that the Court below should have *328granted a nonsuit, or new trial, is to be determined—as such questions must always be determined—by the particular circumstances of the case. Plaintiff had a right to drive upon “ M ” street, and to cross the track at the foot of that street, provided he adopted every reasonable precaution…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Robinson v. Western Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Peru & Indianapolis Railroad v. HasketIndiana Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by32 opinions
- Rush v. LagomarsinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Scott v. San Bernardino Valley Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Polk v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Koster v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
- Hinkle v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.