Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Tracy

Citations

• 191 F. 15
• 111 C.C.A. 557
• 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4927

Syllabus

<p>3, Railroads (§ 324*) — Accidents at Crossings— Reciprocal Duty to Exercise Care.</p> <p>The duty to exercise care to prevent accidents at railroad crossings is reciprocal, and a traveler on the highway cannot recover for an injury, although the railroad company was negligent, if his own negligence contributed to the injury. Whnt constitutes due care on the part of either party may depend on the peculiar circumstances of the ease.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 1020-1025; Dec. Dig. § 324.*)</p> <p>'2. Negligence (§ 136*) — Actions eor Negligence — When Negligence Question eor the Court.</p> <p>The question of negligence becomes one of law for the court when the facts are undisputed and the inferences to be drawn from them are so clear that reasonable men ought not to differ.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. §§ 277-353; Dec. Dig. § 336.*]</p> <p>3. Railroads (§ 326*) — Accident at Crossing — Contri no tort Negligence.</p> <p>Plaintiff’s employes attempted to run a heavy traction engine over a crossing on defendant’s railroad, but, owing to the temporary removal of the planking for the making of repairs, it became stalled when over the tracks, and they were unable to move it either way. While working with it, they saw the smoke from an approaching train when five miles away, but did nothing to warn the trainmen except to blow the whistle, which was not heard. Owing to a curve in the track, the fact that the traction engine was on tire crossing could not be, and was not, known by tire trainmen until too late to avoid a collision. Held that, under the circumstances, the failure of plaintiff’s employes to send some one down the track to signal the train constituted negligence as matter of law, which precluded a recovery by plaintiff for the loss of his engine.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Railroads, Dec. Dig. § 320.*]</p>