Name: Transportation Line v. Hope — Opinion of the Court
Author: Ward Hunt

Quotes from Transportation Line v. Hope — Opinion of the Court (Ward Hunt)

Ward Hunt, Transportation Line v. Hope — Opinion of the Court

“ But if the plaintiff's boat was left in the condition stated, under circumstances which involved imminent peril to the lives of those who remained on board of her, or warranted a reasonable apprehension of such peril, they were justified in abandoning her, and by so doing were not guilty of contributory negligence.'
The boat of the plaintiff was in danger of sinking; he believed the danger to be imminent, and to save his own life jumped from his boat to the tug, leaving his boat without the care or control of any one on board of his boat. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Ward Hunt, Transportation Line v. Hope — Opinion of the Court

“ The answer of the court properly defined the position of the parties. While it was very well to ask a charge that the transporter of the boat was not a bailee, and perhaps that the boat was not within his exclusive control, and that only ordinary care and diligence were required on his part, it was quite incorrect to ask a charge that the boat was within the possession and the exclusive care and control of her owner.
The transportation company did not occupy the position of a common carrier, and did not have that exclusive control of the barge which that relation would imply. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Ward Hunt, Transportation Line v. Hope — Opinion of the Court

“ As an expert, he could properly aid the jury by such evidence, although it would not be competent to be given by an ordinary witness. It is upon subjects on which the jury are not as well able to judge for themselves as is the witness that an expert as such is expected to testify. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Ward Hunt, Transportation Line v. Hope — Opinion of the Court

“ Hope, the plaintiff in the Circuit Court, sought to recover damages for the loss of his barge, which the defendants undertook to tow from Jersey City to New Haven, through Long Island Sound.
The barge was lost before reaching her destination; and the jury to which the case was submitted found a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,125.30 damages. This was based upon the theory of the negligence of the defendants in the performance of their duty.
With the general question of negligence we have nothing to do. The finding of the jury is conclusive upon that subject. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Ward Hunt, Transportation Line v. Hope — Opinion of the Court

“ He must furnish motive power not only, but he must direct her location, whether on the part or the starboard side, whether she shall be the inside boat or the outside one, when and how she shall be lashed to other boats, with what fastenings she shall be secured as she is dragged through the water, whether she shall go fast or slow, when, if at all, she shall drop astern, when she shall go to harbor, how long remain there, and what shall be her course of navigation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Ward Hunt, Transportation Line v. Hope — Opinion of the Court

“ The court sustained the admission of the evidence, using this language: 'We entertain no doubt that those who are accustomed to the responsibility o command, and whose lives are spent on the ocean, are qualified as experts to prove the practical effect of cross-seas and heavy swells, shifting winds and sudden squalls.' The books give a great variety of cases in which evidence of this character is admissible, and we have no doubt of the competency of the evidence to which this objection is made. ”

Ward Hunt

Summary

Quotes from Transportation Line v. Hope — Opinion of the Court (Ward Hunt)

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature

Ward Hunt

Summary

Quotes from Transportation Line v. Hope — Opinion of the Court (Ward Hunt)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature