Trask v. California Southern Railroad
LOWELL TRASK v. THE CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
- Area
- civil
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
Per Curiam.
The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled.
The point is made that the evidence shows that the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the defendant’s engineer, and that as he was engaged in the same general business with such engineer, he assumes, in taking employment, such a risk, and should not be allowed to recover. But the court finds that the injury was caused by the unskillfull, improper, and negligent manner in which the defendant constructed its road.
Conceding that the point urged, as to the relation of the plaint*97iff and the engineer is correct, it has no application to the facts as found. The plaintiff did not assume the risk arising from the unskillful, improper, and negligent manner in which defendant’s road was constructed.
It is said that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the findings as to the construction of the road above stated. We have examined the evidence and are of opinion that it does sustain the finding.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Cited by
- Vaughn v. California Central Railway No. 13183 · 1890-02-01
- Magee v. North Pacific Coast Railroad No. 11730 · 1889-03-21
- Brown v. Sennett No. 8743 · 1885-12-22