holding that operators of a stage coach ride were subject to 24 the same standard of care as a common carrier, because “the plaintiffs had surrendered themselves 1 to the care and custody of the defendants; they had given up their freedom of movement and 2 actions; there was nothing they could do to cause or prevent the accident. Under the circumstances 3 of this case, the defendants had exclusive possession and control of the facilities used in the 4 conduct of their business and they should be held to the highest degree of care.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that operators of a stage coach ride were subject to 24 the same standard of care as a common carrier, because “the plaintiffs had surrendered themselves 1 to the care and custody of the defendants; they had given up their freedom of movement and 2 actions; there was nothing they could do to cause or prevent the accident. Under the circumstances 3 of this case, the defendants had exclusive possession and control of the facilities used in the 4 conduct of their business and they should be held to the highest degree of care.”
- reversing judgments where names and descriptions of the parties in the verdicts did not conform to the pleadings
- abolishing the unavoidable accident instruction
- operator of amusement park's stage-coach ride held to highest duty of care
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Day
concurs in the result.
I concur in the result announced by the majority opinion, but I expressly refuse to subscribe to the rule announced by the majority on the duty of care owed by an amusement park operator to its patrons.