Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Degree Of Care Required In The Operation Of A Scenic Railway, Ralph W. Aigler
The Degree Of Care Required In The Operation Of A Scenic Railway, Ralph W. Aigler
Articles
The case of O'Callaghan v. Dellwood Park Co., - Ill. -, 89 N. E. 1005. decided by the supreme court of Illinois, October 26, 1909, is of interest because of the holding of owners and operators of scenic railways to the same high degree of care required of railroads and common carriers of passengers in general. The action was in case for the recovery of damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff by reason of having been thrown out of a car on defendant's scenic railway. The plaintiff had paid the usual charge for the ride and was, at the …
Liability Of Water Companies For Losses By Fire In Actions Of Tort, Ralph W. Aigler
Liability Of Water Companies For Losses By Fire In Actions Of Tort, Ralph W. Aigler
Articles
In Fisher v. Greensboro Water Supply Company, 128 N. C. 375, it was held that the defendant water company was liable in damages in an action of tort for negligent failure to furnish sufficient water pressure in the mains of the city, by reason of which negligence the plaintiff's house was burned. The only duty on the part of the defendant to furnish water grew out of a contract made by the company with the city and the fact that the defendant had entered upon the business of supplying water pursuant to such contract.
Fright Without Physical Impact But Resulting In Physical Injury, Joseph H. Drake
Fright Without Physical Impact But Resulting In Physical Injury, Joseph H. Drake
Articles
The recent Maryland case of Green v. T. A. Shoemaker & Co., reported in 73 Atlantic Reporter, 688, (June, 1909) puts this jurisdiction squarely on the side of those courts that do allow recovery for fright alone, if physical injury is caused thereby. The court confesses that "the numerical weight of authority supports the general rule that there can be no recovery for nervous affections unaccompanied by contemporaneous physical injury," but nevertheless holds firmly with the minority of the courts to the view that there are exceptions to this rule and that this case falls within the exceptions.