Hayes v. Union Pacific Railroad

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that questions as to whether a railroad complied with its common law duty to “provide such warnings and safeguards at its crossings as a reasonably prudent person would demand under the circumstances,” was “best left to a jury for determination.”
• holding that questions as to whether a railroad complied with its common law duty to “provide such warnings and safeguards at its crossings as a reasonably prudent person would demand under the circumstances,” was “best left to a jury for determination.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).