Nailor v. Maryland, Delaware & Virginia Railway Co.

Citations

• 29 Del. 145

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroads—Injuries on Track—Contributory Negligence.</p> <p>Where the negligence of a party killed while crossing a railroad track was the proximate cause of his death, his widow is not entitled to recover of the road, no matter how negligent it may have been.</p> <p>2. Appeal and Error—Presumption Favoring Judgment Below.</p> <p>In determining, on appeal from judgment for plaintiff, whether decedent, killed by a railroad, was negligent, that testimony must be accepted as true which is most favorable to plaintiff.</p> <p>3. Railroads—Injuries at Crossing—Contributory Negligence— Question for Jury.</p> <p>In an action against a railroad for the death of a party killed when the automobile he drove ran into a train at a crossing, whether the deceased could or could not have seen the train in time to avoid the accident was a question for the jury.</p> <p>4. Railroads—Injuries at Crossing—Contributory Negligence— Question for Jury.</p> <p>In such action whether, by the exercise of proper care, decedent could have heard the train had he listened was a question for the jury.</p> <p>5. Railroads—Injuries at Crossing—Proximate Cause—Question for Jury.</p> <p>Whether decedent’s running his automobile at ten miles an hour was negligence contributing proximately to cause his death was for the jury.</p> <p>6. Railroads—Injuries on Track—Contributory Negligence—Sudden Peril.</p> <p>Where a highway traveler, without fault on his part, is suddenly placed in a position of imminent peril at a railroad crossing, the law will not hold him negligent if he does not select the wisest course or do the safest thing; all that is required of him being that he act with due care under the circumstances.</p> <p>7. Railroads—Injuries on Track—Contributory Negligence—Sudden Peril—Question for Jury.</p> <p>. In an action against a railroad for injuries at a crossing, whether the party injured was suddenly placed in a position of imminent peril, so that lie was not negligent if he did not do t