Legal Opinion

Spence v. Waters

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided May 26, 1938No. Action on the case for negligence, No. 222PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHarrington, J.

In Byrne v. Schultz, Incorporated, 306 Pa. 427, 160 A. 125, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in commenting on the same principle said [page 126]:

“The law only makes obligatory the rule of common sense regarding the duty of a driver at the intersection of streets, where traffic is very dangerous because conflicting. He must be vigilant, must exercise a high degree of care, must have his car under complete control, and must look, and see what is visible, before attempting to cross an intersecting street. This duty has not been relaxed by the introduction of traffic officers and signals, both…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Byrne v. Schultz (Stone)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Styskal v. BrickeyNebraska Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Carnes v. WinslowSupreme Court of Delaware · 1962
  3. Laurinat v. GieryNebraska Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Patrick J. Nolan, Administrator of the Estate of John P. McLaughlin Deceased v. Roy W. Sullivan, JrCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
  5. Halpern v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1955

2 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