Garlich v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
Citations
- 131 F. 837
- 67 C.C.A. 237
- 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4319
Syllabus
<p>1. AVitnesses — Cross-Examination—Scope.</p> <p>It is no objection to the cross-examination of a plaintiff’s witness that it discloses facts tending to constitute a defense, where such facts relate directly to matters about which he testified on his direct examination.</p> <p>2. Evidence — Private Statutes — Necessity oe Pleading.</p> <p>Neither a private statute nor a city ordinance is admissible in evidence to establish a defendant’s negligence in the running of a railroad train, unless pleaded.</p> <p>3. Railroads — Injury to Person on Track — Contributory Negligence.</p> <p>The law recognizes the track of an operated railroad as a place of danger, of which danger a view of the track conveys notice; and when a person goes upon such track, or so near it as to he within the overhang of the cars or engine, ordinary care requires that he be alert in the use of his senses of sight and hearing to guard himself from harm, and no reliance on the exercise of care by persons in control of trains will excuse his failure to exercise such care. If the use of these senses is interfered with by obstructions or by noises, ordinary reasonable care calls for proportionately increased vigilance.</p> <p>4. Same — Failure to Look and Listen.</p> <p>Plaintiff, without occasion therefor, was walking near a city station in the space between railroad tracks and a river bank, used as a pathway, and ranging in width from 5 to 25 feet. A freight train was moving in the opposite direction on the second track from him, making the usual noise; and, after looking back along the nearest track, which could be seen for about 500 feet, and seeing no train thereon, plaintiff walked on about 150 feet, without again looking back, when he was struck and injured by the end of the pilot beam on the engine of one of defendant’s trains which came from behind him. The space between the track and river bank was there 11 feet wide, and plaintiff was walking at a safe distance from the track until just befo
Judges: Eochren
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- King Manufacturing Co. v. City Council of AugustaSupreme Court· 1928-05-14· cited 61×
- St. Louis & S. F. R. v. CundieffEighth Circuit· 1909-05-11· cited 28×
- Tipp v. District of ColumbiaD.C. Circuit· 1939-01-23· cited 24×
- Hart v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1912-03-30· cited 23×
- Robinson v. Denver City Tramway Co.Eighth Circuit· 1908-09-05· cited 22×
- Tomlinson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1904-12-07· cited 15×
- Rollins v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1905-07-28· cited 12×
- Oaks v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa· 1916-03-11· cited 11×
- Vappi v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana· 1924-01-21· cited 10×
- Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. JonesNinth Circuit· 1906-02-05· cited 9×
- Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. MungerEighth Circuit· 1909-03-18· cited 9×
- Payne v. BlevinsFourth Circuit· 1922-03-21· cited 8×
- St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. ChapmanEighth Circuit· 1905-07-14· cited 7×
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. BaldwinEighth Circuit· 1908-10-31· cited 7×
- Choctaw, O. & G. R. v. HamiltonE.D. Oklahoma· 1910-10-03· cited 6×
- Kaiser v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1913-02-10· cited 2×
- Gilhooley v. Columbus Railway, Power & Light Co.Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division· 1918-05-15
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1904-04-14· cited 67×
- Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. AndrewsEighth Circuit· 1904-04-06· cited 51×
- Blount v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.Sixth Circuit· 1894-04-03· cited 38×
- Pyle v. ClarkEighth Circuit· 1897-03-22· cited 37×
- Smith v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1900-04-19· cited 10×
- Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. v. RossowEighth Circuit· 1902-07-07· cited 8×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.