Weston v. Hines

Citations

• 107 Kan. 625
• 193 P. 340
• 1920 Kan. LEXIS 135

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Negligence — Railroad Crossing — Traveler Obeying Signal of Flagman — Finding of Negligence Interpreted. In an action against a railroad company growing out of a crossing collision, where there is evidence that the plaintiff attempted to cross the track in obedience to a signal from a flagman, a' finding of the jury that the defendant’s negligence consisted in “insufficient flag service” may be interpreted as meaning that the flagman was remiss in his duty rather than that another flagman was required.</p> <p>2. Same — Contributory Negligence — Question of Fact for Jury. Where the driver of a vehicle is about to cross a- railroad track the fact that he receives a signal from a flagman to go ahead does not relieve him from the obligation to exercise' due care for his own protection; but it prevents his failure to ascertain for himself whether a train is approaching (by looking and listening, stopping for the purpose if necessary) from constituting contributory negligence as a matter of law, leaving the jury to determine whether under all the circumstances, including the giving of the signal, he acted with reasonable prudence.</p>