Legal Opinion

Wilson v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided February 27, 1894PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

We think that the first count is demurrable, in that it charges negligence without setting forth in particular any act or omission of the defendant constituting negligence. As a general rule it is necessary that a declaration should state the facts on which the supposed duty to the plaintiff was founded and the duty to the plaintiff with the breach of which the defendant is charged. It is not enough to show that the defendant has been guilty of negligence without showing in what respect he was negligent and how he became bound to use care to prevent injury to others. Smith v. Tripp, 13 R.I.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Co. v. StegemeierIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburg Railroad v. HutchinsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Ernst v. . Hudson River Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1868
  4. State v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1888
  5. Kissenger v. . N.Y. Harlem R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. StumpfCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1903
  2. McClain v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1913
  3. State v. Balto. O.R. Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1929
  4. Northern Central Ry. Co. v. State Ex Rel. GilmoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1905
  5. Stegner v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API