Martin v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Railroad

Citations

• 16 Del. 123

Syllabus

<p>Negligence. Railroads.—In an action to recover damages for injury to person or property, suffered, in crossing a railroad, the plaintiff must show that the negligence of the defendant was the cause of the injury, and that he did not contribute thereto.</p> <p>Same.—The plaintiff having been killed and unable to speak for'himself is clothed by the law with a presumption that he did his duty.</p> <p>Same.—The duty of diligence at grade crossings is imposed both on the company and the traveller on the highway.</p> <p>Same.—The railroad company in under no original duty to maintain a flagman at a particular crossing, but if it has done so for some years, the traveller has a right, in his absence, to assume that the road is clear and the way safe.</p> <p>Same.—The absence or negligence of the flagman will not excuse the traveller from using every reasonable precaution.</p> <p>Evidence.—In an action against a railroad company for damages resulting from a collision at a grade crossing, a witness may be asked whether in his judgment it was an unusually dangerous crossing.</p> <p>Same.—Where the condition of the crossing has not been materially changed, since the accident, the present range of vision may be proved.</p> <p>Same.—Examinations to ascertain how far a train- may be seen are not admissible when there has been a material change effecting the range of vision.</p> <p>Same. Witness. Practice.—Six witnesses only may be called to testify to a single fact, and any who do so when called for other purposes will be counted.</p>