Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Calhoun
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO AND APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP OKLAHOMA. The facts are stated in the opinion. For the plaintiff to recover, the negligence of the railway company must have been the direct and proximate cause of the injury. A proximate cause in the law of negligence is such a ci ase as operates to produce particular consequences without the intervention of an independent, unforeseen cause, without which the injury would not have occurred.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO AND APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP OKLAHOMA. The facts are stated in the opinion. For the plaintiff to recover, the negligence of the railway company must have been the direct and proximate cause of the injury. A proximate cause in the law of negligence is such a ci ase as operates to produce particular consequences without the intervention of an independent, unforeseen cause, without which the injury would not have occurred. If subsequent to the original wrongful or negligent act, a new cause has intervened of itself sufficient to stand as the cause of the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Moody
The defendant in error, hereafter called the plaintiff, brought an action in a District Court of the Territory of Oklahoma against the plaintiff in error, hereafter called the defendant, to recover damáges suffered by him on account of an injury alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant. He had judgment, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory, and the case is now here upon a writ of error directed to that court. The trial was by a jury, and as one question of law before us is whether á verdict for the plaintiff 'was warranted, the evidence is reported in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Railroad Co. v. StoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Scheffer v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Insurance Co. v. TweedSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by122 opinions
- Bird v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Di Sabato v. SoffesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
- The Malcolm Baxter, Jr.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. FonvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Bell v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
117 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.