Samuel Freeman Miller

Name: Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court
Author: Samuel Freeman Miller

Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Samuel Freeman Miller. It explores elements such as carrier, exception and negligence.

Quotes from Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Freeman Miller)

Samuel Freeman Miller, Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court

“ All the instructions asked for by the defendant ought therefore to have been given. Though the proximate cause may be occasioned by inevitable accident, the carrier is still bound to care and diligence. Yet no greater foresight of extraordinary perils is expected of him than of other men, and no greater penalty visited for its failure. When he discovers himself in peril, the law requires of him ordinary care, skill, and foresight. This is defined to be the common prudence which men of business and heads of families usually exhibit in matters that are interesting to them. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court

“ If his own neglect is the proximate cause of the peril being incurred, he is responsible. If he could have removed the property injured, beyond the reach of flood or fire, and so have escaped from that cause of loss, but did not do so, then, although the flood or fire was the act of God, yet the injury or loss was really caused by his negligence, and the accident was not inevitable. The fact that the carrier has done what is usual, is not sufficient to exempt him from a charge of negligence. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court

“ As difficulties increase in danger, great care then becomes the ordinary care of a prudent man. If one uses the precautions which a reasonable man would use under the circumstances, he is not responsible for omitting other precautions which are conceivable, even though if he had used them the injury would certainly have been avoided.
Now as to the question of proof of negligence. The rule is admitted to be that the burden of proof is on the carrier to show that the loss was occasioned by a cause for which he is not responsible. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court

“ It is not safe to trust the memory of a judge engaged in trying a multitude of cases, even for a week, in regard to the evidence given or refused, or to the language he may have used in directing the jury. We submit, therefore, that there is no bill of exceptions here, on which the court can act ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court

“ Mr. Phillips in reply: No doubt the bill of exceptions is open to animadversion, as not in good technical form. But it is certain that the exception to the action of the judge was a 'proceeding,' and a very important one, and the opening of the bill declares that all the 'following proceedings' were had 'on the trial of the cause.'
It is again said, that the exceptions are too general, and that they should have been specifically made to the several charges. It is to be observed that the charges were asked in the first place by the defendant. These were rejected, and the defendant excepted. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court

“ When the negligence of the carrier exposes him to what he might otherwise have escaped, he is responsible for losses thus occurring through the combined agency of his own negligence and of inevitable accident. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court

“ There is no doubt that some portions, at least, of the charge and directions of the judge below, in this case, were correct in point of law. If he stated one correct proposition, the exception to his charge falls. [5]
2. Of the contract made at Chattanooga, and the law as to common carriers, as set forth in the instructions given.
The court instructed the jury that if the agent having charge of freights and their transshipment did make such a contract, it bound the company. This was right. The testimony shows that the company sent only one freight train each day, and that in the morning ”

Samuel Freeman Miller

Summary

Quotes from Railroad Company v. Reeves — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Freeman Miller)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature