(265)


15    102  STREET  RAILWAY  ACCIDENT  LAW.  [Ch.   6

a  number  of  cases.  In  Fox  v.  Oakland  Consol.  St.  Ey.^^^  it
was  held  that  the  fact  that  a  man  was  too  poor  to  keep  serv-
ants to  look  after  his  child  was  not  a  matter  to  be  coiisidered
by  the  jury;  and  in  Cunningham  v.  Los  Angeles  Ry.  Co.^"^
it  was  held  that,  although  it  is  true,  as  an  abstract  proposi-
tion, that  the  law  does  not  require  parents  to  keep  an  attend-
ant with  their  young  children,  or  to  shut  them  up,  it  is  error
to  give  such  instruction  to  the  jury,  since  the  question  as  to
whether  such  precautions  are  necessary  in  any  particular  state
of  facts  is  for  them  to  decide.  It  seems  from  the  case  of
Gumming  v.  Brooklyn  City  E.  Co.^^^  that  evidence  is  inad-
missible to  show  that  a  mother  was  unable  to  hire  anybody
to  aid  her  in  looking  after  her  child,  but,  on  the  other  hand,
it  has  been  squarely  held  in  a  number  of  cases  that  the  finan-
cial condition  and  station  in  life  of  parents  may  be  consid-
ered in  determining  the  question  of  their  due  care  in  car-
ing for  their  children.^^*

The  courts  are  very  unwilling  to  declare  parents  negligent
in  these  cases  as  a  matter  of  law,  and  whether  they  are  neg-
ligent, in  any  given  case,  in  allowing  a  child  to  play  in  or
near  the  house  or  store,  alone,  or  in  charge  of  other  children
or  some  older  person,  is  almost  invariably  held  to  be  a  ques-

391 118  Cal.  55.
392  115  Cal.   561.
393 104  N.  Y.  669.
394  Cotter  V.  Lynn  &  B.  R.  Co.,  180  Mass.  145;  O'Plaherty  v.
