Wilson v. Cunningham
WILSON v. CUNNINGHAM and POTTER
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
Heydenfeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.
In the case of railroads which are permanently established by law as a mode of conveyance, the rule is correctly stated by the respondent’s counsel, that the conductors are only required to use the ordinary care pertaining to that description of business. But no reason exists for extending such a rule to the present case., ^Where the streets of a city, forming, as usual, thronged thoroughfares, are diverted from their ordinary and legitimate uses, by special license, to a private person, for his own benefit, and for the pursuit of a business which involves constant risk and danger, no other rule is consistent with the safety and protection of the community, than that which demands extraordinary care.
Judgment affirmed.
Cited by
- People ex rel. Teschemacher v. Davidson · 1866-10-15
- People v. Dennis No. 605 · 1866-02-19