...evidence tends to show the men on the engine did see, or could have seen plaintiff 's danger. ( 5 ) " Where the thing is shown to be under the management...defendant, or his servants, and the accident is such as, under an ordinary course of things, does not happen if those who have the management use proper care,...

...Orth, Gl Wis. 631; Brten v. New York etc. RR Co., 109 NY 297. Or, as expressed in an English case, "where the thing is shown to be under the management...the defendant or his servants, and the accident is euch as, in the ordinary course of things, docs not happen if those who have the management use proper...

...rule was declared by the Exchequer Chamber in 1865 (/), in these terms: — " There must be reasonable evidence of negligence. " But where the thing is shown...the defendants, that the accident arose from want of (e) Carpue v. London $ Brighton $ SCR Co. (1850) 5 Ex. 787. JZ. Co. (1844) 6 QB 747, 751, 13 (/) Scott...

...reasonable evidence of negligence, but where the thing (meaning the thing which caused the injury) isshown to be under the management of the defendant or his...use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absense of explanation by the defendant, and that the accident arose from want of care." In the...

...point. Pollock On Torts, No. 363. " Thére must bo reasonable " evidence of negligence. But, whén the thing is shown " to be under the management of the defendant, or his ser" vants, and the accident is such as, in the ordinary course " of things, does not happen if those...

...etc. Docks Co., 3 Hurl. & Colt. 596, the doctrine was thus laid down: "There must « some reasonable evidence of negligence. But where the thing is shown...use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation, that the accident arose from want of care." See also Priggs v. Oliver,...

...that " where the thing" (goods suspended over the pavement, which fell and injured the plaintiff) " is shown to be under the management of the defendant...reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care." In Moffatt v. Btifeman (e), it was held that...

...reasonable evidence of negligence, but where the thing (meaning the thing which causes the injury) is shown to be under the management of the defendant...reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care." In the case at bar the thing which obstructed...

...There *«iu3tbe reasonable evidence of negligence. •Bat, «hen the thing is shown to be under "lie management of the defendant or his "servants, and...use " proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, *m the absence of explanation by the de" tendant, that the accident arose from want •of care." On...

...defendant or his servant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care,...reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation by the defendant that the accident arose from want of care." [183] The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial...