Wabash R. Co. v. De Tar

Citations

• 141 F. 932
• 4 L.R.A.N.S. 352
• 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4064

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroads—Injury at Crossing—Presumption as to Due Care by TravELER.</p> <p>Because the natural instinct of self-preservation generally prompts men to acts of care and caution when approaching or in the presence of danger, there is, in the absence of credible evidence of the actual fact in any instance, a presumption of the exercise of due care and caution; but, like other presumptions of fact arising from the ordinary or usual conduct of men, rather than from what is invariable or universal, this presumption is disputable, and cannot exist where it is incompatible with the conduct' of the person to whom it is sought to apply it, which may be shown by the testimony of eyewitnesses to his movements, or by evidence of the physical surroundings and other conditions at the time.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For eases in point, see vol. 41, Cent. Dig. Railroads, § 1121.] ■</p> <p>2. Same—Weight and Application op Presumption. ‘</p> <p>The presumption of the exercise of due care and caution on the part of one approaching a place of danger is essentially inferior in probative force ■ and weight to credible evidence, either direct or circumstantial, explanatory of the actual occurrence, and, in those courts where the presumption underlies the rule that the burden of proving contributory negligence rests upon the defendant and must be maintained by a fair preponderance of the evidence, its force and influence are so largely embodied in the enforcement of that rule that it has little independent application, save as it rests upon a general, but not invariable, rule of human experience which may and should be considered in determining the credibility of evidence and the weight to be given to it when these matters are not otherwise entirely clear.</p> <p>{Syllabus by the Court.)</p>