Garrett v. Illinois Cent. R.

Citations

• 126 F. 406
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5172

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroads — Injuries at Crossing — Direction of Verdict.</p> <p>In the federal court, in an action for injuries to the driver of a wagon while crossing a .railroad track, it is the duty of the trial judge to direct a verdict for the defendant, where under the evidence reasonable men could not differ as to whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; and this, although the court may doubt if the case should be taken from the jury.</p> <p>8. Same — Use of Tracks.</p> <p>Where the ground on which a railway crossing was constructed was a part of the railroad’s right of way, and had never been dedicated or condemned as a street, but the railroad company permitted the public to cross at such point, and opened trains standing on the tracks for such purpose, the rights of the public to use the crossing were subordinate to the rights of the railroad company.</p> <p>3. Same — When. Stopping Required.</p> <p>In an action for injuries to the driver of an express wagon while attempting to cross several railroad tracks in a city at a point where the right to cross existed merely by permission of the railroad company, evidence reviewed, and held to show that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in failing to stop to see that all of the tracks were clear before attempting to cross.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>Where defendant’s servants, who saw plaintiff approaching defendant’s railroad crossing, had no reason to think that he would attempt to cross until plaintiff had gotten on the tracks in front of an approaching train, and at that time such servants acted promptly and efficiently in slowing down, defendant was not liable, notwithstanding plaintiff’s contributory negligence, on the ground that its servants, after they saw plaintiff, could have prevented his injuries by stopping the train before they did.</p>