St. Louis & S. F. R. v. Rutland
Citations
- 207 F. 287
- 125 C.C.A. 31
- 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1625
Syllabus
<p>1. Railroads (§ 347*)—Injuries at Crossings—Tennessee Statute Requiring Lookout—Applicability.</p> <p>Shannon's Code Term. §§ 157<L-1E576, which require every railroad company to keep some person on its locomotives always on the lookout ahead, and to take certain other precautions to prevent an accident in case any person, animal, or other obstruction appears on the track, and make a company failing to observe such requirements absolutely liable in case of any accident or collision resulting in injury to person or property, as construed by the Supreme Court of the state, do not apply to cases where it is impossible to comply with their requirements, or wholly impracticable consistently with the operation of the road, as in cases of switching operations, or where it is necessary in or about yards to push cars with the engine moving backwards, etc. Where a plaintiff’s intestate was struck and killed at a street crossing by cars so being pushed, on a track extending along .a cross street extending from the terminal of one railroad to that of another, to which the cars, with their loads, were being transferred, it was a question of fact whether the situation was such as to make the statute applicable, and evidence as to the length of the transfer track, the extent of its use, the character of the country traversed, and the means or practicability of transferring the engine around, so as to return on the track if it preceded the cars, was relevant and admissible.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 1124-1137; Dee. Dig. § 347.*]</p> <p>2. Railroads (§ 350*)—Injuries at Crossings—Contributory Negligence.</p> <p>A person struck and killed at night, while walking along a street crossed by several railroad tracks near together, by cars which were being pushed backward, cannot be charged with contributory negligence as matter of law, where it did not appear that he could see the lights on the approaching cars, or how well the place was lighted, a
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that progressive defendant’s laches defense, explaining the relationship encroachment is “a course [that] does not tend to arouse between the two doctrines as follows: hostile action until it is fully developed”
- “The essence of unfair competition consists in palming off, either directly or indirectly, one person's goods as the goods of another, and this, of course, involves an intent to deceive.”
- “The essence of unfair competition consists in palming off, either directly or indirectly, one person’s goods as the goods of another, and this, of course, involves an intent to deceive.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Denison
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.