9. Injury to consignee-Contributory negligence-Duty of consignee to dis- cover defects in car.
In an action by a consignee for in- juries received from a defective door on the car from which he was unload- ing ice, it was not negligence for plain- tiff to have failed to discover all of the defects in the door and to have suspended the unloading until, on his complaint, defendant had repaired the door. Maher v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 278 Fed. 431 (1921). 21:371-388
that one of the supporting hooks could jump off the rail, would justify a find- ing that defendant failed to furnish a door that was in a reasonably safe con- dition. Maher v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 278 Fed. 431 (1921). 21:371-388
12. Intrastate shipment-Limitation of liability for negligence.
Under the statutes of Virginia an at- tempt by a carrier to limit its liability for its own negligence in the handling of an intrastate shipment is void. Adams Exp. Co. v. Allen, 125 Va. 530, 100 S. E. 473 (1919)........21:223-241
13. Negligent delay in shipment of ar- ticle-Damages recoverable. Where the nature of the article and the circumstances of the shipment of hog cholera serum were such as to charge a carrier with general damages for negligence in failure to transport it promptly, and the damage naturally resulting from such failure was the loss of the hogs for the treatment of which it was intended, it was unneces- sary to render the carrier liable for the loss of such hogs, that the number which might be lost should be known to the carrier or that, at the time the shipment was made, it should actually have considered such damages. Adams Exp. Co. v. Allen, 125 Va. 530, 100 S. E. 473 (1919) ..21:223-241
- Presumption of knowledge of intended use of hog cholera serum. Where hog cholera serum was given by the state agricultural department to an express company for shipment to an individual, and the importance of prompt transportation by a certain train on the same day was urged upon defendant's agent, it must be assumed, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that defendant had knowl- edge that the serum was intended for use as a preventive treatment of hogs for the disease of hog cholera. Adams Exp. Co. v. Allen, 125 Va. 530, 100 S. E. 473 (1919) .21:223-241
General and special damages -Failure promptly to transport hog cholera serum.
Where the purpose for which hog cholera serum was intended to be used by the consignee was the ordinary and only purpose for which such serum is used and that purpose was actually or constructively known to the defendant at the time the contract of carriage was made, the damages for delay in the shipment are general and not spe- cial, and are such as would naturally arise from failure to receive the serum
promptly. Adams Exp. Co. v. Allen, 125 Va. 530, 100 S. E. 473 (1919).... 21:223-241
16. Shipping Contract-Limitation of liability.
Where the sum of $56.75 was en- tered in an express receipt as the amount of the C. O. D. charges to be collected and there was no insertion of the words "not exceeding $50'' as the value by which the rate of charge for transportation was to be fixed, the contract did not show that there was an attempt to limit the liability of the carrier on such shipment to the sum of $50. Adams Exp. Co. v. Allen, 125 Va. 530, 100 S. E. 473 (1919).....
Annotation: Liability of carrier for injury to passenger by derailment of train 21:112-137 Annotation: Negligence of carrier in maintenance of station comforts and facilities as actionable.....21:171-183 Annotation: Carrier's liability for baggage checked for transportation un- accompanied by passenger...21:184-194
Annotation: Limitation of liability of carrier for loss of property from check room .21:195-199
Annotation: Injury to person board- ing or alighting from street car by operation of door or steps of car..... 21:706-728
Annotation: Liability of street rail- way company for injury to passenger due to jerks or jolts of car.. 21:820-854
1. Baggage-Liability for loss when not accompanied by passenger. Where plaintiff, desiring to take a through train over defendant's road to her destination in Michigan, obliged to proceed first to Cincinnati, Ohio, because the through train did not stop at her station, purchased a ticket to Cincinnati and checked her trunk thereto, intending to recheck it there for her destination, and the trunk was stolen before leaving the initial point, she was entitled to recover therefor though she did not use the ticket to Cincinnati but proceeded there by a more convenient means and there purchased and used a ticket over defendant's road to her destination. Caine v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 217 Mich. 232, 185 N. W. 765 (1921) 21:184-194
2. Injury to passenger-Actions-In structions Unusual starting of car. In an action by a street car passen- ger to recover for injuries received due to a sudden jerk of the car, an instruction which required the jury to find that defendant's servants caused or permitted the car "to be suddenly and violently started and jerked for- ward with such force" as to throw someone who was riding on the inside against the glass door breaking the glass and causing the glass to strike plaintiff, was sufficient to require the jury to find that the jerk was unusual or extraordinary. Laycock v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Mo. S. W. 91, rev'g Mo. App. S. W. 883 (1921)....
When definition of "acci- dent" not required.
Evidence, in an action for personal injuries received by plaintiff due to the premature closing of doors and raising of the step of defendant's
law in sitting in the carrier's waiting room beyond the departure of her train where she did so in reliance upon the time as shown by the clock maintained by the carrier for the information of passengers. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 152, 87 So. 676 (1920) 21:171-183
- Delay-Continuance of journey beyond railroad destination.
In an action by a passenger for dam- ages resulting from delay in transport- ing her to her destination, where the evidence failed to show that defend- ants were informed that her journey was to be continued from her destina- tion on the railroad to a point 25 miles into the country, it was error to refuse to instruct the jury that defendants would not be liable for any damages resulting from exposure, etc., on such continuation of her journey due to a change in the weather which would have been avoided but for the delay. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 152, 87 So. 676 (1920)..21:171-183
10. Damages-Elements of recov- ery on contract for transportation of passenger.
In an action for damages resulting to a passenger from missing her train at a railroad junction due to defend- ants' clock in waiting room registering the time incorrectly, the damages re- coverable under a count based on vio- lation of contract are for inconvenience and physical suffering and consequent sickness, suffered as a proximate con- sequence of being left at the station at the time and under the circum- stances indicated. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 152, 87 So. 676 (1920) 21:171-183
cover therefor only when he has given the carrier notice of the facts of such peculiar circumstances. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 152, 87 So. 676 (1920) 21:171-183
In an action for damages resulting to a passenger from missing a train at a junction point due to the clock in defendants' waiting room being slow, the defendants should be held responsible, under a count based upon negligence, for all the consequences which a prudent and experienced man, fully acquainted with all the circum- stances which in fact existed, whether they could have been ascertained by reasonable diligence or not, would, at the time of the negligent act, have thought reasonably possible to follow, if they had occurred to his mind. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 152, 87 So. 676 (1920)......21:171-183
13. Evidence-Sufficiency as to stop- ping street car to take on passengers. In an action for personal injuries received by a passenger while attempt- ing to board defendant's street car, due to a premature closing of the doors and raising of the step, evi- dence examined and held conclusive that the car stopped at the usual place, that the doors were opened, and that plaintiff attempted to enter the car while it was at rest. Maloney v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Mo. 237 S. W. 509 (1921)...21:706-729
« 이전계속 » |