Scribd
Upload
621 views

Chapman V Underwood Digest

1) The plaintiff attempted to board a streetcar but was struck from behind by the defendant's automobile as he waited for the streetcar to pass. 2) The defendant's driver had suddenly turned right to pass an oncoming streetcar on the wrong side of the road and struck the plaintiff. 3) The court found the driver negligent for passing on the wrong side but did not hold the defendant responsible because the time between the driver turning and hitting the plaintiff was too short for the defendant to correct the driver.

Uploaded by

Gin Francisco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
621 views

Chapman V Underwood Digest

1) The plaintiff attempted to board a streetcar but was struck from behind by the defendant's automobile as he waited for the streetcar to pass. 2) The defendant's driver had suddenly turned right to pass an oncoming streetcar on the wrong side of the road and struck the plaintiff. 3) The court found the driver negligent for passing on the wrong side but did not hold the defendant responsible because the time between the driver turning and hitting the plaintiff was too short for the defendant to correct the driver.

Uploaded by

Gin Francisco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Chapman v Underwood GR 9010 Mar 28, 1914 J MORELAND

FACTS: At the time the accident occurred, which is the basis of this action, there was a single-track street-car line
running along Calle Herran, with occasional switches to allow cars to meet and pass each other. One of these
switches was located at the scene of the accident.
The plaintiff had been visiting his friend, Creveling, in front of whose house the accident happened. He desired to
board a certain "San Marcelino" car coming from Santa Ana and bound for Manila. Being told by Creveling that
the car was approaching, he immediately, and somewhat hurriedly, passed from the gate into the street for the
purpose of signaling and boarding the car. Plaintiff attempted to board the front platform but, seeing that he could
not reach it without extra exertion, stopped beside the car, facing toward the rear platform, and waited for it to
come abreast of him in order to board. While in this position he was struck from behind and run over by the
defendant's automobile.
The car which the plaintiff intended to board was on the main line and bound in an opposite direction to that in
which defendant was going. When the front of the "San Marcelino" car, the one the plaintiff attempted to board,
was almost in front of defendant's automobile, defendant's driver suddenly went to the right and struck and ran
over the plaintiff, as above described. The judgment of the trial court was for defendant.
ISSUE: W/N defendants driver was guilty of negligence.
HELD: YES. A careful examination of the record leads us to the conclusion that defendant's driver was guilty of
negligence in running upon and over the plaintiff. He was passing an oncoming car upon the wrong side. The
plaintiff, in coming out to board the car, was not obliged for his own protection, to observe whether a car was
coming upon him from his left hand. He had only to guard against those coming from the right. He knew that,
according to the law of the road, no automobile or other vehicle coming from his left should pass upon his side of
the car. He needed only to watch for cars coming from his right, as they were the only ones under the law
permitted to pass upon that side of the street car.
The defendant, however, is not responsible for the negligence of his driver, under the facts and circumstances of
this case. In the case before us it does not appear from the record that, from the time the automobile took the
wrong side of the road to the commission of the injury, sufficient time intervened to give the defendant an
opportunity to correct the act of his driver. Instead, it appears with fair clearness that the interval between the
turning out to meet and pass the street car and the happening of the accident was so small as not to be sufficient to
charge defendant with the negligence of the driver.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy