American Negligence Reports, Current Series: (cited Am. Neg. Rep.) All the Current Negligence Cases Decided in the Federal Courts of the United States, the Courts of Last Resort of All the States and Territories, and Selections from the Intermediate Courts, Together with Notes of English Cases and Annotations, Volume 7
John Milton Gardner, Walter James Eagle
Remick & Schilling, 1900 - Employers' liability
"All the current negligence cases decided in the federal courts of the United States, the courts of last resort of all the states and territories, and selections from the intermediate courts, together with notes of English cases and annotations." (varies)
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
accident action alleged appeared appellee appliances assumed the risk brakeman Brush Electric carrier charge Chicago circumstances City claimed collision common carrier condition conductor contract contractor contributory negligence counsel County crossing danger deceased defect defendant in error defendant's demurrer duty Electric elevator employed employee engine evidence exercise fact fall feet fellow-servant fire furnished gence ground guilty held highway horses independent contractor instruction intestate Iowa ipoo judge Judgment affirmed jury lever liable light machine machinery Mass master Minn motion N. J. Law N. W. Rep N. Y. Supp nonsuit Ohio operating opinion ordinary owner passenger passing plaintiff in error platform proximate cause question railroad company railway company reasonably safe recover damages result road rule servant side sidewalk sleeping car statute street Supreme Court switch testified testimony ticket tiff tion track train trench trial verdict wagon witness
Page 13 - If an injury has resulted in consequence of a certain wrongful act or omission, but only through or by means of some intervening cause, from which last cause the injury followed as a direct and immediate consequence, the law will refer the damage to the last or proximate cause, and refuse to trace it to that which was more remote.
Page 190 - The general rule of law is now firmly established, that one who enters the service of another takes upon himself the ordinary risks of the negligent acts of his fellow servants in the course of the employment.
Page 29 - We think that the true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land 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 206 - ... the question turns rather on the character of the act than on the relations of the employees to each other. If the act is one done in the discharge of some positive duty of the master to the servant, then negligence in the act is the negligence of the master ; but if it be not one in the discharge of such positive duty, then there should be some personal wrong on the part of the employer before he is held liable therefor.
Page 8 - It, is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, so that such verdict, if returned, must be set aside, the court is not bound to submit the case to the jury, but may direct a verdict for the defendant.
Page 512 - Absolute safety is unattainable, and employers are not insurers. They are liable for the consequences, not of danger, but of negligence; and the unbending test of negligence in methods, machinery, and appliances is the ordinary usage of the business.
Page 629 - The proposition which these recognised cases suggest, and which is, therefore, to be deduced from them, is that whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that everyone of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognise that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such...
Page 194 - But what the master is, in my opinion, bound to his servant to do, in the event of his not personally superintending and directing the work, is to select proper and competent persons to do so, and to furnish them with adequate materials and resources for the work. When he has done this, he has, in my opinion, done all that he is bound to do, and if the persons so selected are guilty of negligence, this is not the negligence of the master...
Page 194 - The master is not, and cannot be, liable to his servant unless there be negligence on the part of the master in that in which he, the master, has contracted or undertaken with his servant to do. The master has not contracted or undertaken to execute in person the work connected with his business.