Du Ross v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad

Citations

• 28 Del. 245
• 92 A. 811
• 5 Boyce 245
• 1914 Del. LEXIS 36

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroads—Crossing Accident—Actions—Declaration.</p> <p>In an action for injuries in a crossing collision, a count alleging that the crossing was a peculiarly dangerous one because of facts therein alleged, that it was defendant’s duty to give such timely notice or warning of the approach of its train as the unusual and peculiar dangers demanded, that the defendant, not regarding its duty, negligently drove a train at a great rate of speed across the highway, without giving due and timely notice or warning of its approach, in that it did not place a flagman, watchman, or proper signal, or maintain a safety gate at the crossing, was not defective on the ground that there was no duty on the part of the company to station a flagman or watchman or maintain a safety gate, as the declaration did not allege that such was its duty, or that its failure to station a flagman or watchman, or to maintain a safety gate, was negligence, but merely pleaded these as tending to show that defendant negligently failed to give due and timely notice of the train’s approach, and this was not such a pleading of matters of evidence as made the count bad in law.</p> <p>2. Railroads—Crossing Accident—Actions—-Declaration.</p> <p>In an action for injuries in a crossing accident, which it was alleged was a peculiarly dangerous one, an allegation that defendant failed to give due and timely warning of the approach of the train to such crossing sufficiently informed defendant of the act of negligence charged, as the duty to give due and timely notice was not so complicated or so varied in its performance as to require a more specific allegation.</p>