2009, ISBN: 0217275605, Lieferbar binnen 4-6 Wochen

Internationaler Buchtitel. In englischer Sprache. Verlag: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 500 Seiten, L=152mm, B=229mm, H=28mm, Gew.=726gr, Kartoniert/Broschiert, Klappentext: Purchase of … More...

Internationaler Buchtitel. In englischer Sprache. Verlag: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 500 Seiten, L=152mm, B=229mm, H=28mm, Gew.=726gr, Kartoniert/Broschiert, Klappentext: Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: feel bound to hold that the direction arid the verdict were in accord anee with the law and the facts. Keating, J., concurred. Rule refused. The general rule, reiterated in this case, that the party injured cannnot maintain an action, if by his own negligence he has contributed to the injury, must, to employ the language of Denio, J.. be considered " a legal postulate" One of latest American cases upon the point is Wilds ?. The Hudson River Railroad Company, 10 Smith (New York Court of Appeals, 1862) 430, where the rule is laid down broadly and unequivocally. The right to recover damages depends upon the fact that the injury was attributable to the defendant exclusively; if it were occasioned in any degree by the negligence of the plaintiff, in other words if it would not have happened without plaintiff's contributing negligence, he cannot recover. See also Button v. The Hudson River Railroad Company, 4 Smith (New York Court of Appeals, 1858) 248, and cases cited; Cox . Westchestcr Turnpike Company, 33 Barb. (N. Y. Sup. Court, 1861) 414; Bieseigcl . The N. Y. Central Railroad Co., Id. 429; Horton v. Ipswich, 12 ?ush. (Mass. 1853) 488; Todd v. The Old Colony, andc., Railroad Co., 7 Allen (Mase. 1863) 207. An extraordinary application of this principle is to be found in The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Co. v. Hummel, 8 Wright (Pa. 1863) 375, where the mere presence of a child on a railroad track, not at a highway intersection, is of itself held to be such contributing negligence as to make it error for a court to submit the question to the jury. This is also an illustration of the rule that the plaintiff must make out a pruna facie case of exclusive negligence on the part of the defendant, before he is permitted to go to the jury: Johnson v. The Hudson River Ra...<