Miller v. Spokane International Ry. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtHunt, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Counsel for the plaintiff refers to the statutes hereinbefore cited, and contends that it was obligatory upon the carrier to use certain safety appliances and to observe certain specific directions concerning the kind and use of certain specific parts of locomotives, their tenders and appurtenances; that the observance of each specific rule is made a specific duty and that any violation resulting in injury to the employé becomes a specific actionable tort; that violation of each specific rule constitutes a new tort; and that, although the different specific…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Stark v. StarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Sayward v. ThayerWashington Supreme Court · 1894
- Clare v. New York & New England RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Panos v. Great Western Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
- Van Norden v. Charles R. McCormick Lumber Co. of DelawareCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928