What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
accident actual Allen answerable appears applied authority Bank Barb bound breach Brown cause of action Chicago cited City common law condition Conn consequences contract course Court damage danger decision defendant distinction doubt duty effect entitled evidence exceptions exercise exist express fact give given ground hand harm held injury intention Johnson Jones judgment jury justified kind L. J. Ex land liable limited Lord malice Mass matter means Minn N. W. Rep natural necessary negligence nuisance Ohio opinion ordinary owner particular party person plaintiff possession prevent principle probable proved question Railroad reasonable regard remedy result risk rule seems servant Smith statement statute things tion tort trespass true Wood wrong York
Page 593 - We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
Page 545 - J., observed that in order for it to apply "there must be reasonable evidence of negligence, but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen, if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.
Page 80 - ... whensoever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default, and the act, neglect, or default is such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof...
Page 378 - ... whereby to charge any person upon or by reason of any representation or assurance made or given concerning or relating to the character, conduct, credit, ability, trade, or dealings of any other person, to the intent or purpose that such other person may obtain credit money or goods upon, unless such representation or assurance be made in writing, signed by the party to be charged therewith.
Page 564 - But there is another proposition equally well established, and it is a qualification upon the first, namely: that though the plaintiff may have been guilty of negligence, and although that negligence may, in fact, have contributed to the accident, yet if the defendant could in the result, by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, have avoided the mischief which happened, the plaintiff's negligence will not excuse him.
Page 548 - The judge has to say whether any facts have been established by evidence from which negligence may be reasonably inferred : the jurors have to say whether from those facts, when submitted to them, negligence ought to be inferred.
Page 217 - The detriment caused by the wrongful conversion of personal property is presumed to be : "First — The value of the property at the time of the conversion, with the interest from that time, or, an amount sufficient to indemnify the party injured for the loss which is the natural, reasonable and proximate result of the wrongful act complained of and which a proper degree of prudence on his part would not have averted; and "Second — A fair compensation for * the time and money properly expended...
Page 215 - So if a man gives another a cuff on the ear, though it cost him nothing, no not so much as a little diachylon, yet he shall have his action, for it is a personal injury. So a man shall have an action against another for riding over his ground, though it do him no damage; for it is an invasion of his property, and the other has no right to come there.
Page 177 - To draw a line between fair and unfair competition, between what is reasonable and unreasonable, passes the power of the courts.
Page 382 - But with respect to the question whether a principal is answerable for the act of his agent in the course of his master's business, and for his master's benefit, no sensible distinction can be drawn between the case of fraud and the case of any other wrong.