Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Yellow Cab Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 9, 1923PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoerfler, J.

The jury, among other things, was instructed as to the degree of care required by the defendant in the operation of its cab at the time and place in question as follows:

“The duty which the defendant, as a common carrier, owes to a passenger requires the defendant’s employees, for the safety of its passengers, in the operation of its cars to exercise the highest degree of care reasonably to be expected from human vigilance and foresight in view of the mode and character of the conveyance adopted and consistent with the practical prosecution of its business.”

To this instruction defendant duly…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Terminal Taxicab Co. v. KutzSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Lemon v. ChanslorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
  3. Jackson Architectural Iron Works v. HurlbutNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
  4. Cushing v. WhiteWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Carlton v. BoudarSupreme Court of Virginia · 1916

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Boynton Cab Co. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Black & White, Inc. v. LoveSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963
  3. Blumenthal v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1937
  4. Jarrell v. Orlando Transit Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1936
  5. Shelton Taxi Company v. BowlingCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932

20 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