Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Ives

Citations

• 144 U.S. 408
• 12 S. Ct. 679
• 36 L. Ed. 485
• 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2086

Syllabus

<p>When, in an action brought against a railroad company in Michigan by the administrator of a person killed by one of its trains, to recover damages for the killing, the record in this court fails to show that any exception was taken at the trial, based upon the lack of evidence to show that he left some one dependent upon him for support, or some one who had a reasonable expectation of receiving some benefit from him during his lifetime, as required by the laws of. that State, (Howell’s Ann. Stat. §§ 3391, 3392,) the objection is not before this court for consideration.</p> <p>The terms “ ordinary care,” “ reasonable prudence,” and similar terms have a relative significance, depending upon the special circumstances and surroundings of the particular case.</p> <p>When a given state of facts is such that reasonable men may fairly differ upon the question as to whether there was negligence or not, the determination of the matter is for the jury; but where the facts are such that all reasonable men must draw the same conclusion from them, the . question of negligence is one of law, for the court.</p> <p>The running of a railroad train within the limits of a city at a greater speed than is permitted by the city ordinances, is a circumstance from which negligence may be inferred in case an injury is inflicted upon a person by the train.</p> <p>Whether ordinary care or reasonable prudence requires a railroad company to keep a flagman stationed at a crossing that is especially dangerous is a question of fact for a jury; although in some cases it has been held to be a question of law for the court.</p> <p>Where the statutes of a State make provisions in regard to flagmen at crossings, this court will follow the construction given to such statutes by its courts; and, so following the decisions of the courts of the State of Michigan, it is held that the duty to provide flagmen or gates, or other adequate warnings or appliances, may exist outside of the statute if the situati