Fernandes v. Sacramento City Ry.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. In reserving his exception to the charge of the Court, the appellant used the following language: “ And the plaintiff then and there objected [to] the giving of said instruction, and the same is here assigned as an error of law occurring at the trial of said case, and excepted to by plaintiff.”
1Opinion of the Court
The second instruction (see folio 106 of Transcript) asked by defendant and given by the Court is not good law in this, that the Court instructs the jury that if the plaintiff contributed, in any degree, to the injury, he cannot recover, thereby holding him responsible, not for ordinary care and caution, and such care and caution as a prudent man would exercise under the same circumstances, but for the greatest and gravest caution or the slightest negligence. There might have been negligence in both parties, and yet the plaintiff entitled to recover. (Sedgwick on Damages, 580; Clayard v.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Beisiegel v. New York Central RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Needham v. San Francisco & San José R.R.California Supreme Court · 1869
- Flemming v. W. Pac. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1874
- Gay v. WinterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Barton v. St. Louis & Iron Mountain RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Buesching v. St. Louis Gaslight Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Herbert v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- Rush v. LagomarsinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Stephenson v. S. Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Schneider v. Market Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.