 Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation, or doing what such a person under the existing circumstances would not have done.  The Ohio Law Journal - 第 59 頁1883完整檢視 - 關於此書
 | North Carolina. Supreme Court - 1905 - 922 頁
...v. RAILROAD. circumstances suggested and required. The approved meaning of the term is the omission to do what a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily...circumstances of the situation, or doing what such a person under the existing circumstances would not have done. The duty, thus imposed, is dictated... | |
 | 1896 - 644 頁
...Negligence is the want of care required by the circumstances. It may "lie in omission or commission, in the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person...done under the circumstances of the situation, or in doing what such a person under the existing circumstances would not have done :" Baltimore Railroad... | |
 | 1877 - 1004 頁
...Madison, Sup. Ct. Wis., t. LN, Dec. 15, p. 103; se.. Rep., Jan. 9, p. 59. Contributory negligence. — 1. Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable...circumstances of the situation, or doing what such a person under the existing circumstances would not have done ; The essence of the fault may lie in... | |
 | 1877 - 980 頁
...Sup. (_X Wis., CLN, Dec. 15, p. 103; >. c., Rep., Jan. 9, p. 59. —.— Contributory negligence.—1. Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable...circumstances of the situation, or doing what such a person under the existing circumstances would not have done; The essence of the fault may lie in... | |
 | Utah. Supreme Court, Albert Hagan, John Augustine Marshall, John Maxcy Zane, James A. Williams, Joseph M. Tanner, George L. Nye, John Walcott Thompson, August B. Edler, Alonzo Blair Irvine, Harmel L. Pratt, William S. Dalton, H. Arnold Rich - 1905 - 618 頁
...Negligence is a relative term and is well defined by the Supreme Court of the United States, as follows : "Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable...circumstances of the situation, or doing what such a person under the existing circumstances would not have done. The essence of the fault may lie in... | |
 | Utah. Supreme Court, Albert Hagan, John Augustine Marshall, John Maxcy Zane, James A. Williams, Joseph M. Tanner, George L. Nye, John Walcott Thompson, August B. Edler, Alonzo Blair Irvine, Harmel L. Pratt, William S. Dalton, H. Arnold Rich - 1904 - 636 頁
...brakeman that he did not push the plaintiff from the train. The third instruction given is as follows: "Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable...circumstances of the situation, or doing what such a person, under the existing circumstances, would not have done. Klenk v. Railroad. The duty is dictated... | |
 | Utah. Supreme Court, Albert Hagan, John Augustine Marshall, John Maxcy Zane, James A. Williams, Joseph M. Tanner, George L. Nye, John Walcott Thompson, August B. Edler, Alonzo Blair Irvine, Harmel L. Pratt, William S. Dalton, H. Arnold Rich - 1890 - 658 頁
...incurred by him. At the request of the defendant the court further instructed the jury as follows: 1st. Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would have done, under the circumstances of the situation, or doing what such a person under the existing... | |
 | 1878 - 680 頁
...not." The instruction was refused, and the defendant's counsel excepted. Held, Error. Negligence is failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person...circumstances of the situation, or doing what such a person, under the existing circumstances, would not have done. The essence of the fault may lie in... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1878 - 858 頁
...is sufficient to dispose of the case. Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable and pru dent person would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation, or doing what such a person under the existing circumstances would not have done. The essence of the fault may lie in... | |
 | Nevada. Supreme Court - 1879 - 592 頁
...the severe gusts of wind. Having the right to walk upon the track, the plaintiff was only required to do what a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily have done under the same or similar circumstances. We are of opinion that it would have been clearly erroneous for the... | |
| |
