The fact that the man who handled the rope and whose duty was see those seo writing services matters was not put the stand the defendant not explained. It may that there was a sufficient reason for not producing him in no way connected with his knowledge the transaction, but would seem that if there was any such reason for his absence at the trial, the defendant ought have shown In the light the authorities above cited, very clear that upon the whole evidence the question negligence the part the defendant was properly submitted the jury.
It also urged that there was no negligence the part the defendant or its servants because they owe no duty towards the plaintiff. It suggested that after the defendant's servants commenced unloading the ore the edit essays plaintiff had no right upon the deck the vessel for any purpose, and that for the purpose this trial should deemed a mere intruder or trespasser. We see nothing in the evidence which will sustain that position. The captain the crew the vessel had an undoubted right board notwithstanding the defendant was unloading the ore and perform any necessary work said vessel while the defendant was unloading which did not interfere with the work And where plaintiff lawfully in the highway, and an adjoining building fails upon and injures him, showing these facta would entitled recover.
see, also, Murray So where plaintiff was seen fall in the street and was picked senseless and injured at a point where defendant's track rails were unduly projecting, was held, thesis writing service that a verdict for the plaintiff would not dismissed.
Where the defendants were hoisting a heavy box the upper floors paraphrasing words a building part which they occupied, just as the box reached the second floor, the hooks which was held broke and fell upon and injured the plaintifi who was lawfully in the basement. the plaintifi was Injured whUe sitting upon a stairway leading a basement a block ice which fell from the shoulder defendant's servant who was carrying down the basement, the question the negligence the defendant iii carrying the ice was held properly submitted the jury, who might from the facts infer negligence.
Buy custom research paper
Plaintiff was a dealer in fruits and bad a stand the comer a building in the basement which was a flsh market.
Scientific research paper writing service
On the day the injury was very hot and plaintiff being oppressed with the heat, seated herself in the shade upon the upper step stairs leading the basement, and while in this position the injury occurred. The thing did not speak for itself, first, because there probably was some doubt as whether was the The Court said The mere fact that the plaintiff a hot day left her place business and sat down upon the stairs near In the shade rest does not authorize say as matter law that she was ilty contributory negligence especially upon her testimony which the jury found true the effect that she did not know the presence the servant the defendants until just at the time the injury.
There being no contract relation between the plaintiff and the defendants was incumbent upon her give evidence tending prove negligence the part the defendants or their servants.
It remembered that the servant the defendants was an active agency and had full control and management the ice in question. This being and the accident being such as would not in the ordinary course things have happened if the servant had been in the exercise proper care, and in the absence any evidence tending show that a piece the ice broke off while the cake was being carried with ordinary care, must hold that the jury was authorized infer from the fact and circumstances disclosed negligence the part the servant the defendants. In such case hardly accurate say that negligence presumed from the mere fact the injury, but rather that may inferred from the facts and circumstances disclosed in the absence evidence showing that occurred without the fault the defendant. In such case the facts and circumstances speak for themselves and in the absence such explanation or disproof give rise the inference negligence. Such a case comes within the principle res ipsa loquitur, Such a jury may draw any legitimate inference from the unqualified and unrestricted facts and circumstances disclosed in the evidence. It follows that they would not authorized come the same conclusion if such inference had been wholly removed evidence. The case before certainly the border line and close the line at that. We should equally tender and respectful the verdict had In an action against a gas company for injuries received the plaintiff the inhalation gas which escaped from the defendant's pipes, defendant's or his servant's act at all and next, because £ could not shown that the defendant was neg appeared that the plaintiff, who was too young testify, occupied the same room and bed with his mother that the door the room in which iliey slept was broken open in the morning, and the plaintiff was found insensible the dead body his mother, whose death was caused the escaping gas that the escaping gas write my paper cheap came from a crack in the pipe laid the defendant through the street which the plaintiff lived that there were no gas fixtures in the room and there was no evidence that the plaintiff or his mother had notice escaping gas. There was also evidence that the day before the accident, there was no smell gas in the street, and that the mother was a sober and prudent woman. It was held that there was evidence sufficient support a verdict for the plaintiff, and that a ruling, that there was evidence enough want proper care the part the defendant make responsible, the ground that was bound conduct its gas in a proper manner and that the fact that the gas escaped was prima facie evidence some neglect -the part the defendant was not open exception.