Legal Opinion

Harrington v. Portland Traction Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1942PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLusk, J.

Since both vehicles had the right to the use of the streets, it was the duty of the defendant company in the operation of its street car to use ordi nary care to avoid a collision with the automobile. McKeag v. Portland Electric Power Company, 128 Or. 614, 619, 275 P. 667. In that case (which involved a collision with an automobile which had stalled on the track in front of the defendant’s car), the court quoted with approval the following from 25 R.C.L., Street Railways, 1251, § 113:

“It is the duty of the motorman to keep a lookout for vehicles on the track, and to give timely warning of the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Kelly v. Chicago City Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Terrell v. Trimble CountyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
  3. Elder, Receiver v. Rutledge, Admx.Indiana Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Mangan v. Des Moines City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1925
  5. Wheeler v. Des Moines City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1927

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Clark v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1952
  2. Shaver Forwarding Co. v. Eagle Star InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Chandler v. Metropolitan Transit AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API