Washburn v. Tracy
Supreme Court of Vermont
In Error. In an action on the case for negligence, if it appear that the defendant was not in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, yet, if it appear that the injury complained of would not have happened, hut for a want of ordinary care and diligence in the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
Read the full summary
In Error. In an action on the case for negligence, if it appear that the defendant was not in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, yet, if it appear that the injury complained of would not have happened, hut for a want of ordinary care and diligence in the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. It is ordinarily the duty of a person on horse-back to yield the travelled path to one who is travelling in a wagon or other vehicle sanctioned by common consent and immemorial usage. Where evidence is given on the trial of a cause relevantto the issue, and of course proper for…
1Opinion of the Court
Skinnee Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Several questions are presented by the bill of exceptions arising out of the charge of the Judge, but in deciding the case, our attention has been confined to the point in relation to the duty of the Court to have charged the Jury upon the law as applicable to a case in which the negligence of the plaintiff or his servant may have caused or contributed to the injury complained of, which from the evidence contained in the record, appears to have been pertinent in the case, and upon which the counsel for the defendant in the Court below,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wise v. BowenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1821
3Cited by4 opinions
- Riepe v. EltingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- Campbell v. CampbellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Macon & Western R. R. v. WinnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1856
- Parker v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1847