[Download] "Pierce v. Safeway Stores" by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Pierce v. Safeway Stores
• Author : Supreme Court of Montana
• Release Date : January 11, 1933
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 59 KB

Description

Personal Injuries ? Complaint ? Automobiles ? Duties of Pedestrian and Automobilist ? Proximate Cause ? Damages ? Contributory Negligence of Infant ? Instructions ? Non-suit ? Proper Denial. Personal Injuries ? Automobiles ? Complaint Alleging Several Acts of Negligence ? Correct Instruction. 1. An instruction, given in an action for personal injuries sustained by a boy in a collision with a motor-truck, the complaint alleging several acts of negligence on the part of the driver, that plaintiff was not required to prove all the acts of negligence alleged, but if the evidence satisfied the jury by its preponderance that one or more of such acts caused the injury, he was entitled to recover, correctly stated the law. Same ? Duties of Pedestrian and Driver of Automobile ? Proper Instruction. 2. Instruction relative to the rights and duties of pedestrian and automobilist in the use of the public highway, the rate of speed at which the latter may drive under existing conditions, etc., held correct. Same ? Contributory Negligence of Boy of Immature Age ? Instruction Held Proper. 3. Instruction that plaintiff, a boy thirteen years of age, was required to exercise only that degree of care which a reasonable person of his age and understanding would exercise under similar circumstances, approved. Same ? Proximate Cause of Injury ? Proper Instruction. 4. Held, that there was no error in giving an instruction that if the jury believed from a preponderance of evidence that plaintiff was injured by defendants truck on the highway and that such injury was directly and proximately caused by any of the - Page 561 negligent acts or omissions of defendant, verdict should be for plaintiff, unless plaintiff was guilty of negligence. Same ? Damages ? Instruction Upheld. 5. Where, in a personal injury case, there was medical testimony that injuries to plaintiffs leg were permanent, an instruction that in fixing damages the jury could take into consideration any permanent injuries which had been proved was properly given. Same ? Negligence and Contributory Negligence ? Questions for Jury. 6. In a personal injury action, the issues of negligence and contributory negligence are for the jurys determination under proper instructions. Same ? Directed Verdict ? Non-suit ? When Only Case to be Taken from Jury. 7. A case should not be taken from the jury unless it follows, as a matter of law, that plaintiff cannot recover upon any view of the evidence, including the legitimate inferences to be drawn from it; on motion for non-suit every fact will be deemed proved which the evidence tends to prove. Same ? When Driver of Automobile may not be Said to have Been Free from Negligence, as Matter of Law. 8. A court may not say, as a matter of law, that a truck driver in driving on an unobstructed highway on a clear day and passing within a foot or two of a thirteen year old boy at the rate of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour, without sounding a warning or attempting to slacken his speed, was not negligent. Same ? Contributory Negligence of Immature Boy ? Evidence ? Insufficiency. 9. A boy thirteen years of age, walking with others on the unpaved portion of a highway, may not be held guilty of contributory negligence in stepping on the paved portion thereof and directly in front of an approaching truck, though warned by one of his companions of the danger of walking on the pavement, where it was in evidence that he had no knowledge of the proximity of the approaching truck.

Ebook Free Online "Pierce v. Safeway Stores" PDF ePub Kindle