Lindsay v. Cecchi
Decision Date | 20 June 1911 |
Citation | 26 Del. 133,80 A. 523 |
Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
Parties | NANCY E. LINDSAY and JOSEPH HORACE LINDSAY, her husband, defendants below, plaintiffs in error, v. ANGELO CECCHI, an infant, by RAFFAELO CECCHI, his next friend, plaintiff below, defendant in error |
Supreme Court, June Term, 1911.
WRIT OF ERROR (No. 2, January Term, 1911), to the Superior Court for New Castle County. Action by Angelo Cecchi by his next friend, Rafaelo Cecchi, against Nancy E. Lindsay and her husband (No. 74, September Term, 1909) to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligent operation of an automobile. Judgment for plaintiff (1 Boyce 185, 75 A. 376), and defendants bring error. Reversed. The facts and questions presented appear in the opinion of the court.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case remanded for retrial.
James Saulsbury for plaintiffs in error.
Leonard E. Wales for defendant in error.
CURTIS Chancellor, and Associate Judges BOYCE, CONRAD and WOOLLEY sitting.
This action was brought in the court below by Angelo Cecchi, an infant, by his next friend, Raffaelo Cecchi, against the defendants, Nancy E. Lindsay and Joseph Horace Lindsay, her husband, to recover damages for personal injuries which the plaintiff alleges he sustained by reason of being run into knocked down and injured by an automobile driven and operated by Nancy E. Lindsay, one of the defendants on the twenty-fourth day of March, A. D. 1909, near the intersection of Sixth and Tatnall streets in the City of Wilmington.
The plaintiff was a child of about six years of age. The narr. of the plaintiffs alleges among other things as acts of negligence that the driver or operator of the automobile had no proper license as required by the act of assembly in that behalf.
The plaintiff had a verdict, the defendant having excepted to the charge of the court to the jury. The assignments of error are based upon the charge of the court.
The main point raised by the assignments of error is: Did the court below err in its instructions to the jury regarding the law governing the issuing of licenses to persons operating automobiles in this state?
The court below charged the jury in part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Young v. Julian, Civ. A. No. 1219
...129, 134, 56 S.Ct. 397, 80 L.Ed. 528. 4 Campbell v. Walker, 2 Boyce 41, 25 Del. 41, 78 A. 601, 604. 5 Lindsay v. Cecchi, 3 Boyce 133, 26 Del. 133, 80 A. 523, 524, 35 L.R.A.,N.S., 699. 6 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 19, p. ...
-
Goldner v. Lentin
...Davis v. Gordon, 183 Md. 129, 36 A.2d 699, 156 A.L.R. 1109; Dervin v. Frenier, 91 Vt. 398, 100 A. 760; Lindsay v. Cecchi, 3 Boyce 133, 26 Del. 133, 80 A. 523, 35 L.R.A.,N.S., 699; Lutfy v. Lockhart, 37 Ariz. 488, 295 P. 975; Speight v. Simonsen, 115 Or. 618, 239 P. 542, 43 A.L.R. 1149; Maho......
-
Pepper v. Walsworth
... ... between the negligence arising from the violation of the law ... and the accident and injury ... Lindsay ... vs. Cecchi, 26 Del. 133, 80 A. 523, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... Turner ... vs. Bennett, 161 Iowa 379, 142 N.W. 999 ... ...
-
Brown v. Green And Flinn, Inc.
... ... a causal connection or relation. Nothing of this sort is ... averred in the count, and it is insufficient. Lindsay v ... Cecchi, 26 Del. 133, 3 Boyce 133, 80 A. 523, 35 ... L. R. A. (N.S.) 699. Whether in an action for negligence the ... owner, or driver, had ... ...