 | 1905 - 1124 str.
...the same circumstances" — the test of liability was right, and then, apparently casually, said that "what ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not," and cited Wabash R. Co. v. McDaniels. With this single exception,... | |
 | 1908 - 1156 str.
...Co. v. Behymer, 189 US 468, at page 470, 23 Sup. Ct. 622, at page 623 (47 L. Ed. 905) the court says: "What usually is done may be evidence of what ought...fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether It usually le compiled with or not." In Maynard v. Buck. 100 Mass. 47, 48, the court says: "What bad been... | |
 | 1917 - 1312 str.
...circumstances. This exception needs no discussion. The charge embodied one of the commonplaces of the law. What usually is done may be evidence of what ought...fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not." We think the view of this question which we are endeavoring to express... | |
 | 1905 - 856 str.
...the same circumstances" — the test of liability was right, and then, apparently casually, said that "what ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not," and cited Wabash R. Co. v. McDaniels. With this single exception,... | |
 | New York (State). Supreme Court. Appellate Division - 1908 - 1072 str.
...they could have done otherwise. In Texas & Pacific E. Co. v. Behymer (189 US 468) the court says : " "What usually is done may be evidence of what ought...fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not." Of such reasonable prudence the defendant was able to furnish no... | |
 | 1904 - 1014 str.
...no discussion. The charge embodied one of commonplaces of the law. What usually is done may be dence of what ought to be done, but what ought to be done ixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usu.' is complied with or not. Wabash R. Co.... | |
 | 1906 - 992 str.
...1 Wash. 446, 25 Pac 335. Wisconsin. — Douglas v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 100 Wis. 405, 76 KW 356. What usually is done may be evidence of what ought...be done, but what ought to be done is fixed by a. reasonable prudence, whether it is usually complied with or not. So held in Wabash Ry. Co. v. McDaniels,... | |
 | 1906 - 1298 str.
...the same circumstances" — the test of liability was right, and then, apparently casually, said that "what ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not;" and cited Wabash R. Co. v. McDaniels. With this single exception,... | |
 | 1906 - 1298 str.
...Eddy, 115 Mo. 283, 21 SW 742. Mr. ML Clardy also for appellant. Messrs. Silver & Brown, for respondent: What ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence. Texas & PR Co. v. Behymer, 189 US 468, 47 L. ed. 905, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; Dougherty v. Kansas City... | |
 | 1908 - 1366 str.
...R. Co. v. McDaniels, 107 US 454, 27 L. ed. 605. 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 932. As said by Mr. Justice Holmes: "What usually is done may be evidence of what ought...fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether ¡t usually is complied with or not." Texas & PR Co. v. Behymer, 189 US 470, 47 L. ed. 905. 23 Sup.... | |
| |
What usually is done may be evidence of what ought to be done, but what ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not. 
