May v. Hanson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County. Action for damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in crossing defendant’s ferry.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County. Action for damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in crossing defendant’s ferry. Defendant’s counsel requested the Court to charge the jury, First— “ That the plaintiff in passing- over the ferry, and the landing and road therefrom, was bound to use prudence and caution and ordinary care, and if the jury believe from the testimony that at the time of the accident the plaintiff’s wagon was defective, or that he drove or rode on the same carelessly, whereby the accident occurred, or either of these causes…
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, C. J.
Heydenweldt, J., concurred.
*364The law regards ferrymen as common carriers, and has imposed upon them the same duties and liabilities. Willis v. Jones, 1 McCord, 105. Cohen v. Hume, Ibid, 440. Rutherford v. McGowen, 1 Nott & McCord, 17. Fisher v. Crisbee, 12 Ill., 344, and the cases there cited.
The principle deduced from these authorities is, that as soon as the ferryman signifies his assent or readiness to receive the passenger, that he becomes liable for his safe transit and delivery, and is chargeable with any accident occurring, except by act of God or the public enemy.
In two of the cases…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fisher v. ClisbeeIllinois Supreme Court · 1851
3Cited by11 opinions
- Buckley v. ChadwickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Sheff v. City of HuntingtonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
- Cagger v. . LansingNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Wilson v. AlexanderTennessee Supreme Court · 1905
- Jacobs v. Tenneco West, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.