Baltimore & Potomac Railroad v. Cumberland

Citations

• 176 U.S. 232
• 20 S. Ct. 380
• 44 L. Ed. 447
• 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1735

Syllabus

<p>Under a regulation requiring railroad tracks running through the streets of a city to be fenced, whenever the grade is “ approximately even” with the adjacent surface of 'the. streets, it is proper for the jury to say whether a track elevated two feet two inches above the surface of the street, is-within thé regulation.</p> <p>Where the declaration averred that there was “ no light” upon the engine to indicate its approach, and the proof was that an insufficient light was carried, it was held that there was no material variance.</p> <p>Where the regulation required that “ a headlight, or other equivalent reflecting lantern,” should be carried upon a train to indicate its approach, it is for the jury to say whether an ordinary hand-lantern is a substantial compliance with the regulation.</p> <p>In determining the existence' of contributory negligence, the plaintiff is not liable for faults which arise from inherent mental or-physical defects, or--want of capacity to appreciate what is and what is not negligence. He is only responsible for the exercise of such faculties and capacities as he is endowed with by nature for the avoidance of danger.</p> <p>While under the circumstances of this case the court‘might have held the plaintiff liable for contributory negligence, if-he had been a man of mature age and average intelligence, as he was a boy of twelve years of age, it was held that the question was properly submitted to the jury.</p> <p>A person crossing the track of a railroad company in the streets of a city for the more convenient performance of his duties is not ipso facto a trespasser.</p>