Hva folk mener - Skriv en omtale
Vi har ikke funnet noen omtaler på noen av de vanlige stedene.
accident action agent Allen apply bailee Bailments Barb bound carriage casus cattle cause charge child circumstances cited collision common carrier common law consequence contract contributory negligence corporation court crossing culpa lata culpa levis culpa levissima damage danger defect defendant defendant's dili diligence diligens diligentia distinction doctrine dolus duty employed employee employment engine evidence Exch exercise fact fence fendant fire gence gratuitous gross negligence guilty held liable Hence highway hire horse Ibid infra injury Judge jurists jury land Law Rep Lex Aquilia ligence loss Mass master municipal corporation natural neglect nonsuit notice omission ordinary owner particular party passenger paterfamilias Penn person plaintiff platform principle proper prudence question railroad company railway reason recover respondeat superior responsible risk road Roman law rule servant skill Smith statute street supra sustained tion track train traveller trespass Ulpian undertakes vicarious liability
Side 662 - ... 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. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default, or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.
Side 294 - I believe quite correctly, that "the rule of law is laid down with perfect correctness in the case of Butterfield v. Forrester, that, although there may have been negligence on the part of the plaintiff, yet unless he might, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the consequences of the defendant's negligence, he is entitled to recover; if by ordinary care he might have avoided them, he is the author of his own wrong.
Side 1 - Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
Side 513 - The carrier and his customer do not stand on a footing of equality. The latter is only one individual of a million. He cannot afford to higgle or stand out and seek redress in the courts.
Side 386 - 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.
Side 157 - The general rule is. that the master is answerable for every such wrong of the servant or agent as is committed in the course of the service and for the master's benefit, though no express command or privity of the master be proved ... It is true, [the master] has not authorized the particular act.
Side 77 - IT were infinite for the law to judge the causes of causes, and their impulsions one of another ; therefore, it contenteth itself with the immediate cause, and judgeth of acts by that, without looking to any further degree.
Side 662 - ... it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour who has brought something on his own property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property...
Side 198 - But, in truth, the mere relation of the master and the servant never can imply an obligation on the part of the master to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do of himself. He is no doubt bound to provide for the safety of his servant, in the course of his employment, to the best of his judgment, information and belief.