Garrett v. Peoples Railway Co.

Citations

• 22 Del. 29
• 6 Penne. 29
• 64 A. 254
• 1906 Del. LEXIS 17

Syllabus

<p>Personal Injuries—Negligence—Railway Company—Care required in running Car or Automobile—-Statute respecting the running of Automobiles—Conflicting Evidence— Damages.</p> <p>1. There can be no inflexible rule as to what specific acts of precaution are necessary to be done or omitted by street railway companies in the management of their cars, or by the public in the use of the streets. What is due and proper care depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.</p> <p>2. The person in charge of the car should not approach a crossing where a large number of persons and vehicles are usually found without giving due and timely warning; and he should so regulate the speed of his car as to have it under control, and, if he sees a person in imminent danger, should use every reasonable efEort to stop or slow up. This does not mean that a motorman must stop or slacken the speed of his car every time a person is seen to approach the crossing with apparent intent to cross the track. He may very properly assume that the traveller, if far enough away to cross safely, will continue his movements and cross in front of the car, or if not far enough away, and if warned of the approach of the car, that he will stop and let the car pass first.</p> <p>3. The person in charge of an automobile would be guilty of negligence if he is unfamiliar with the safety appliances thereof, or being familiar does not use them to prevent collision; or if he drives the machine at a greater rate of speed than one mile in seven minutes through a built up portion of a city, etc.</p> <p>4. Conflicting evidence.—Damages.</p>