Copyright
Edgar W. (Edgar Whittlesey) Camp.

The Encyclopædia of evidence (Volume 8) online

. (page 120 of 143)
Online LibraryEdgar W. (Edgar Whittlesey) CampThe Encyclopædia of evidence (Volume 8) → online text (page 120 of 143)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


terial with material charges, he is
not bound to establish the imma-
terial in order to be entitled to re-
cover. Thompson v. Toledo A. A.
& N. M. R. Co.. 91 Mich. 255. 51 N.
W. 995-

Where plaintiff averred that a
street car collision in which she was
injured was caused by the breakage
of the brake of defendant's car while
descending a hill, together with the
fractious disposition of the horses
which drew the same, causing them
to run away, and the failure to sta-
tion a conductor on the car, who
could have put on the rear brake,
plaintiff must prove each element of
negligence in order to make out a
case. Wormsdorf v. Detroit City R.
Co., 75 Mich. 472. 42 N. W. 1000, 13
Am. St. Rep. 453.

5. United States. — Kefauver v.
Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 122 Fed.
966 (personal injury by sudden start-
ing of train as plaintiff was alight-
ing).

Vol. vm



Alabama. — Western Ry. v. Wil-
liamson, 114 Ala. 131, 21 So. 827;
Birmingham M. R. Co. v. Wilmer,
97 Ala. 165, II So. 886; Bromley v.
Birmingham M. R. Co., 95 Ala. 397,
II So. 341.

Arkansas. — Hot Springs St. R.
Co. V. Hildreth, 82 S. W. 245; St.
Louis & S. F. R. Co. V. Townsend,
69 Ark. 380, 63 S. W. 994.

California. — Kahn v. Triest-Ro-
senberg Cap Co., 139 Cal. 340, 73
Pac. 164 (injury to property by leak
in boiler on upper floor).

Colorado. — Denver & R. G. R. Co.
v. Ryan, 17 Colo. 98, 28 Pac. 79
(death caused by being struck by lo-
comotive at street crossing).

Delaware. — Goldstein v. People's
R. Co., 60 Atl. 975 (death of child
from falling from street car on which
it was trespassing) ; Colbourn ?•.
Wilmington, 4 Pen. 443, 56 Atl. 605
(death of horse by coming in contact
with live wire) ; Jarrell v. Wilming-
ton, 4 Pen. 454, 56 Atl. 379 (struck by
falling awning); Cox t;. Wilmington
City R. Co., 4 Pen. 162, 53 Atl. 569
(death of one caused by his buggy be-
ing struck by street car) ; Farley v.
Wilmington & N. C. Elec. R. Co., 3
Pen. 581, 52 Atl. 543 (death by being
struck by street car at street cross-
ing) ; Boyd z'. Blumenthal, 3 Pen.
564, 52 Atl. 330 (struck by a project-
ing joist while riding in elevator) ;
Adams v. Wilmington & N. Elec. R.
Co., 52 Atl. 264 (struck by street car
at street crossing) ; Tull}^ z'. Phila-
delphia W. & B. R. Co., 3 Pen. 455-
50 Atl. 95 (death by falling from
moving train) ; Martin v. Baltimore
& P. R. Co., 2 Marv. 123, 42 Atl. 442



NEGLIGENCE.



853



(injuries to property struck by train
at highway crossing) ; Wilkins i\
Wilmington, 2 Marv. (Del.) 132, 42
Atl. 418 (personal injuries by driv-
ing into hole in city street) ; Max-
well V. Wilmington City R. Co., i
Marv. 199, 40 Atl. 945 (personal in-
juries to equestrian by collision with
street car) ; Louth v. Thompson, i
Pen. (Del.) 149, 39 Atl. iioo (per-
sonal injuries by falling into area in
sidewalk).

/(/a/io. — Hopkins v. Utah N. R.
Co., 2 Idaho 277, 13 Pac. 343 (in-
juries to team struck by train).

lUbiois. — Chicago & E. T. R. Co. v.
Geary, no 111. 383 (personal injuries
by being struck by train at highway
crossing) ; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
V. Harwood, 90 111. 425 (death by
being struck by train at highway
crossing) ; Quincy, A. & St. L. R.
Co. v. Wellhoener, 72 111. 60; Illinois
Cent. R. Co. v. Cragin, 71 111. 177
(death by being struck' bv train) ;
Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Fay, 16 111.
558, 561, 570, 63 Am. Dec. 323 (per-
sonal injuries by derailment of rail-
way car).

Indiana. — Huntingburgh v. First,
22 Ind. App. 66, 53 N. E. 246 (per-
sonal injuries resulting from defect
in sidewalk) ; Miller v. IMiller, 17
Ind. App. 605, 47 N. E. 338 (loss of
property by fire spreading from de-
fendant's property) ; Lake Erie &
W. R. Co. V. Stick, 143 Ind. 449. 41
N. E. 365 (personal injuries by be-
ing struck by train at highway cross-
ing) ; Cleveland, C. C. & I. R. Co. v.
Newell, 104 Ind. 264, 273, 274, 3 N.
E. 836, 54 Am. Rep. 312 (personal
injuries by derailment of railway
car) ; Cincinnati H. & I. R. Co. v.
Butler, 103 Ind. 31, 2 N. E. 138 (per-
sonal injuries by being struck by
train at highway crossing).

Iowa. — Larkin v. Chicago & G.
W. R. Co.. 92 N. W. 891 ; Whittlesey
V. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., 90
N. W. 516 (personal injuries by de-
railment of train) ; Cramer v. Bur-
lington, 42 Iowa 315; Garrett v.
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 36 Iowa 121
(loss from fire set bv locomotive) ;
Gandy v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co.,
30 Iowa 420 (loss from fire caused
by locomotive) ; Baird v. Morford,
29 Iowa 531.

Kansas. — Atchison, T. & S. F. R.
Co. V. McFarland, 2 Kan. App. 662,



43 Pac. 788 (death of child struck
by train) ; Pcttigrcw v. Lewis. 46
Kan. 78, 26 Pac. 458.

Louisiana. — Buechncr v. New Or-
leans, 112 La. 599, 36 So. 603, 6 L.
R- A. 334 (death by falling through
hole in bridge) ; Le Blanc v. Sweet,
107 La. 355, 369. 31 So. 766.

Maine. — Stevens v. E. & N. A. R.,

66 Me. 74 (personal injuries by de-
railment of train); Bachelder v.
Hcagan, 18 Me. 32.

Maryland. — Baltimore Elev. Co.
z: Neal, 65 Md. 438, 451. 5 Atl. 338.
See Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. State,
63 Aid. 135, 144.

Massacliiisclts. — B r e n n a n v.
Standard Oil Co., 187 Mass. 376, 73
N. E. 472 (death by being run down
by defendant's servant) ; Robinson v.
Fitchburg & W. R. Co., 7 Gray 92.

Michigan. — Pzolla z: Michigan
Cent. R. Co., 54 Mich. 273, 20 N. W.
71 (personal injuries by being struck
by train at highway crossing) ; Kelly
v. Hendrie, 26 ]\Iich. 255 (death by
being struck by street car) : Detroit
& M. R. Co. V. Van Steinburg, 17
Mich. 99, 119 (personal injuries by
being struck by train).

Missouri. — Warner v. St. Louis &
M. R. R. Co., 177 Mo. 125, 77 S. W.
67; Blanton z: Dold, 109 Mo. 64, 18
S. W. 1 149.

Nebraska. — Lincoln Trac. Co. r.
Webb, 102 N. W. 258.

A^czv Hampshire. — Dame v. La-
conia Car Co. Wks., 71 N. H. 407, 52
Atl.^ 864.

iVnc Jersey. — Bien v. Unger, 64
N. J. L. 596, 46 Atl. 593-

Nezv York. — Casper v. Dry Dock,
E. B. & B. R. Co., 56 App. Div. 372,

67 N. Y. Supp. 805 ; Cosulich ?•.
Standard Oil Co., 122 N. Y. 118, 126,
25 N. E. 259, 19 Am. St. Rep. 475;
Hart V. Hudson Riv. Bridge Co., 80
N. Y. 622 (death by falling off
bridge).

North Caroli)ia. — Cox v. Norfolk
& C. R. Co., 123 N. C. 604, 31 S. E.
848; Jones z: North Carolina R. Co..
67 N. C. 122 (death of horse by being
run down by railway train).

North Dakota. — Balding z: .An-
drews, 12 N. D. 267, 96 N. W. 305
(firing of property by burning ele-
vator).

Ohio. — Schweinfurth v. Cleveland,

Vol. VIII



854



NEGLIGENCE.



B. Of Last Clear Chance. — Likewise a plaintiff who avers
that notwithstanding his own contributory negligence his peril could
have been discovered by the defendant in time to avoid the injury
had the latter exercised due care, has the burden of proving defend-
ant's negligent failure to discover the peril, or, having discovered it,
to take due precautions to avoid injury.®

C. Of Contributory Negligence. — a. The General Rule. — In
most jurisdictions, the defendant's negligence having been shown
prima facie, the burden of proof then rests on defendant to affirma-
tively prove the contributory negligence of the person who has
sustained damage. In the absence of proof it cannot be assumed.^



C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 60 Ohio St. 215,
223. 54 N. E. 89.

Pennsylvania. — Pennsylvania Tel.
Co. V. Varnau, 15 Atl. 624; Hays v.
Millar, 77_ Pa. St. 238, 18 Am. Rep.
445 (sinking of scow in tow by neg-
ligence of tow-boat).

South Carolina. — Joyner v. South
Carolina R. Co., 26 S. C. 49. i S.
E. 52.

Texas. — St. Louis S. W. R. Co.
V. Parks, 76 S. W. 740.

[//fl/j. _ Wells V. Utah Const. Co.,
27 Utah 524, 76 Pac. 560.

Vermont. — Bovee v. Danville, 53
Vt. 183 (personal injuries on defec-
tive highway).

Virginia. — Bowers v. Bristol Gas
& Elec. Co., 100 Va. 533, 42 S. E.
296 (death by electric current).

Wisconsin. — Atkinson v. Goodrich
Transp. Co., 69 Wis. 5, 31 N. W. 164;
Dressier v. Davis, 7 Wis. 527 (per-
sonal injuries in collision between
buggies).

In an action by a railway passenger
for injuries by being struck by a
large stone swinging from a derrick
too close to the track on which the
car was passing, an instruction that
the owner of the derrick must show
by a preponderance of the evidence
his freedom from negligence is error.
Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Murphy, 198
111. 462. 470, 64 N. E. loii.

6. Arkansas. — St. Louis & S. F.
R. Co. V. Townsend, 69 Ark. 380, 63
S. W. 994; St. Louis. I. M. & S. R.
Co. V. Jordan, 65 Ark. 429. 47 S. W.

115- . .

Missouri. — Koegel v. Missouri
Pac. R. Co., 181 Mo. 379. 80 S. W.
905.

New Jersey. — Solatinow v. Jersey

Vol. VIII



City H. & P. St. R. Co., 70 N. J. L.
154, 56 Atl. 235.

North Carolina. — Cox v. Norfolk
& C. R. Co., 123 N. C. 604, 31 S. E.
848; Norwood V. Raleigh & G. R.
Co., Ill N. C. 236, 16 S. E. 4-.

Tc.x-as. — Luna v. Missouri, K. &
T, R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S.
W. 1 06 1.

V i r g i n i a. — Richmond Pass. &
Power Co. v. Allen, loi Va. 200, 43
S. E. 3S6.

7. England. — Per Pollock, B., in
Bridges v. Directors Etc. of North
London R. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 213, 223.

United States. — Ward v. Damp-
skibselskabet Kjoebenhaven, 136 Fed.
502; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Land-
rigan, 191 U. S. 461 ; Northern Pac.
R. Co. V. Spike, 57 C. C. A. 384, 121
Fed. 44; Hemingway v. Illinois Cent.
R. Co., 52 C. C. A. 477, 114 Fed. 843;
Watertown v. Greaves, 50 C. C. A.
172, 112 Fed. 183; Chicago G. W. R.
Co. V. Price, 38 C. C. A. 239, 97 Fed.
423; Toledo P. & W. R. Co. v.
Chisholm, 27 C. C. A. 663, 83 Fed.
652; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gentry,
163 U. S. 353. 366; Texas & P.
R. Co. V. Volk, 151 U. S. 73; Horn
7;. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 4 C. C.
A. 346, 54 Fed. 301 ; Eddy v. Wal-
lace, I C C. A. 435. 49 Fed. 801 ; In-
land & Seaboard Coast. Co. v. Tol-
son, 139 U. S. 551 ; Indianapolis &
St. L. R. Co. V. Horst, 93 U. S. 291 ;
Railroad Co. v. Gladmon, 15 Wall.
401.

A I ab am a. — Pullman Palace-Car
Co. V. Adams, 120 Ala. 581, 24 So.
921; Western Ry. v. Williamson, 114
Ala. 131, 21 So. 827; McDonald v.
Montgomery St. Ry.. no Ala. 161,
20 So. 317; Birmingham M. R. Co.



NEGLIGENCE.



855



T'. Wilmer. 97 Ala. 165. n So. 886;
Bromley v. Birmingham M. R. Co..
95 Ala. 397, II So. 341; Louisville &
N. R. Co. V. Hall. 87 Ala. 708, 7-'^-
723. 6 So. 277. 13 Am. St. Rep. 84. 4
L. R. A. 710; Montgomery Gas-
Light Co. V. Montgomery & E. R.
Co.. 86 Ala. 372. 5 So. 735; Mont-
gomery & E. R. Co. f. Chambers. 79
Ala. 338; Thompson f. Duncan, 76
Ala. 334-

Arizona. — Southern Pacific Co. v.
Tomlinson, 4 Ariz. 126, 2>2> Pac. 710;
Hobson V. New Mexico & A. R. Co.,

2 Ariz. 171, II Pac. 545; Lopez v.
Central Arizona Min. Co., i Ariz.
464. 2 Pac. 748.

Arkansas. — Hot Springs St. R.
Co. V. Hildreth. 82 S. W. 245; St.
Louis L M. & S. R. Co. v. Martin.
61 Ark. 549. 2>2> S. W. 1070; Little
Rock & Ft. S. Rv. V. Atkins. 46 Ark.
423, 436; Texas & St. L. R. Co. :■.
Orr, 46 Ark. 182, 193.

California. — Daly v. Hinz, 113
Cal. 366. 45 Pac. 693 ; ]MacDougall v.
Central R. Co.. 63 Cal. 431 ; Nehrbas
V. Central Pac. R. Co., 62 Cal. 320,
334. Co w/>a;v, however. Gay f. Win-
ter. 34 Cal. 153, 163-164.

Colorado. — Platte & Denver Canal
& Mill. Co. V. Dowell, 17 Colo. 376,
30 Pac. 68; Denver & R. G. R. Co.
V. Ryan, 17 Colo. 98, 28 Pac. 79;
Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Twombly. 3
Colo. 125. Compare Denver Tram.
Co. V. Reid, 4 Colo. App. 53. 35 Pac.
269.

Dakota. — Mares v. Northern Pac.
R. Co., 3 Dak. 336, 21 N. W. 5 ; San-
ders V. Reister. i Dak. 151. 171-172,
46 N. W. 680.

Delazi'are. — Reed v. Queen Anne's
R. Co.. 4 Pen. 413, 57 Atl. 529; Cox
2\ Wilmington City R. Co.. 4 Pen.
162. 53 Atl. 569; Boyd V. Blumenthal,

3 Pen. 564, 52 Atl. 330; Louth v.
Thompson, i Pen. 149, 39 Atl. iioo;
Martin r. Baltimore & P. R. Co.. 2
Marv. 123, 42 Atl. 442; Wilkins z:
Wilmington, 2 Marv. 132, 42 Atl. 418.

District of Columbia. — Cowen Z'.
Merriman. 17 App. D. C. 186. 202-
204 ; Harmon z-. Washington & G.
R. Co.. 7 Mack. 255.

Florida. — Jacksonville T. & K. W.
R. Co. V. Peninsular Land Transp. &
Mfg. Co., 27 Fla. I. 99, 100, 9 So. 661.
17 L. R. A. 33; Louisville & N. R.
Co. V. Yniestra, 21 Fla. 700.



Georgia. — Augusta z-. Hudson, 88
Ga. 599. 15 S. E. 678.

Idaho. — Hopkins r. Utah N. R.
Co.. 2 Idaho 277, 13 Pac. 343.

Indiana. — Burns' .Xnno. Stat. 1901,
§ 359'J ; Diamond Block Coal Co. z:
Cuthbertson. 73 N. E. 818. affirming
67 N. E. 558; Southern R. Co. z:
Davi.s. yz X. E. 1053; Pennsylvania
Co. V. Fertig. 70 N. E. 834; Harris
v. Pittsburgh C. C. & St. L. R. Co..
32 Ind. App. 600, 70 N. E. 407;
Howard v. Indianapolis St. R. Co.,
29 Ind. App. 514, 64 N. E. 890; Indi-
anapolis St. R. Co. z'. Robinson, 157
Ind. 232, 61 N. E. 197. The rule was
otherwise in Indiana before the pas-
sage of the act of 1899.

Indian Territory. — Chicago R. I.
& P. R. Co. r. Pounds, i Ind. Ter.
51. 35 S. W. 249.

Kansas. — Kansas City-Leavcn-
worth R. Co. v. Gallagher, 75 Pac.
469; Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co. v.
Lee, 66 Kan. 806. 72 Pac. 266; Burns
z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 66 Kan.
18S, 71 Pac. 244; Missouri Pac. R.
Co. z: Moffatt, 60 Kan. 113, 55 Pac.
837; Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co. z:
Aderhold. 58 Kan. 293, 49 Pac. 83;
Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. z: Hinds.
56 Kan. 758. 44 Pac. 993; St. Louis
& S. F. R. Co. z'. Weaver. 35 Kan.
412, 423-424, II Pac. 408. 57 Am.
Rep. 176; Kansas Pac. R. Co. v.
Pointer. 14 Kan. 37 ; Union Pac. R.
Co. z'. Hand. 7 Kan. 380. 388. See
Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co. z: Hill. S7
Kan. 139. 45 Pac. 581.

Kentucky. — Louisville & N. R. Co.
z: Clark, 20 Kv. L. Rep. 1375, 49 S.
W. 323; Paducah & M. R. Co. v.
Hoehl,' 12 Bush 41.

Louisiana. — Buechner v. New Or-
leans, 112 La. 599. 36 So. 603. 66 L.
R. A. 334-

Maryland. — Baltimore & O. R. Co.
z: Stumpf, 97 Md. 78. 90-92, 54 Atl.
978; Price z: Philadelphia, W. & B.
R. Co.. 84 Md. 506, 36 Atl. 263, 36
L. R. A. 21 s; State z: Baltimore & P.
R. Co., 58 Md. 482; Freeh v. Phila-
delphia W. & B. R. Co., 39 Md. 574-
See Northern Cent. R. Co. f. State,
31 Md. 357, 100 Am. Dec. 69.

Minnesota. — Newstrom f. St.
Paul & D. R. Co., 61 Minn. 78, 63
N. W. 253 ; Wilson v. Northern Pac.
R. Co.. 26 Minn. 278, 3 N. W. 333 :
Hocum Z-. Weitherick. 22 Minn. 152;
St. Paul V. Kuby, 8 Minn. 154

Vol. VIII



856



NEGLIGENCE.



Mississippi. — Simms v. Forbes, 38
So. 546; Hickman v. Kansas City M.
& b' R. Co., 66 Miss. 154, 5 So. 225.
Contra, Vicksburg v. Hennessej', 54
Miss. 391, 28 Am. Rep. 354.

Missouri. — Schroeder z'. St. Louis
Transit Co. (Mo. App.), 85 S. W.
968; Riska V. Union Depot R. Co.,
180 Mo. 168, 79 S. W. 445; Pries-
meyer v. St. Louis Transit Co.. 102
Mo. App. 518, 77 S. W. 313; Waller
7'. Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co., 164
Mo. 180. 64 S. W. T41 ; Crumpley v.
Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., iii Mo.
152, 19 S. W. 820; Mitchell v. Clin-
ton. 99 Mo. 153, 12 S. W. 793;
Buesching v. St. Louis Gaslight Co.,
73 Mo. 219. 229, 39 Am. Rep. 503 ;
Thompson v. North Missouri R. Co.,
51 Mo. 190, II Am. Rep. 443.

Montana. — Cummings v. Helena
& L. Smelt. & R. Wks., 26 Mont. 434.
68 Pac. 852; Hunter v. Montana
Cent. R. Co., 22 Mont. 525, 57 Pac.
140; Presses v. Montana Cent. R.
Co., 17 Mont. 372, 388, 43 Pac. 81, 30
L. R. A. 814; Nelson v. Helena. 16
Mont. 21. 39 Pac. 905 ; Higley v. Gil-
mer, 3 Mont. 90, 35 Am. Rep. 450.
Contra, Ryan v. Gilmer. 2 Mont. 517,
25 Am. Rep. 744.

Nebraska. — Omaha St. R. Co. v.
Martin, 48 Neb. 65, 66 N. W. 1007;
Spears v. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co.,
43 Neb. 720, 62 N. W. 68; Union
Stock Yards Co. v. Conoyer, 41 Neb.
617, 625. 59 N. W. 950; Omaha v.
Ayer, 32 Neb. 375, 49 N. W. 445;
Lincoln v. Walker, 18 Neb. 244. 20
N. W. 113, affirmed 18 Neb. 250, 25
N. W. 66.

New Jersey. — Shelly v. Bruns-
wick Trac. Co., 65 N. J. L. 639. 48
Atl. 562; Consolidated Trac. Co. v.
Behr, 59 N. J. L. 477, 37 Atl. 142;
Jersey Exp. Co. v. Nichols, 33 N. J.
L. 434; Durant v. Palmer, 29 N. J.
L. 544. Contra, Moore v. Central R.
Co., 24 N. J. L. 268.

North Carolina. — Cox v. Norfolk
& C. R. Co., 123 N. C. 604, 31 S. E.
848; Wood V. Bartholomew, 122 N.
C. 177, 29 S. E. 959; Norton v. North
Carolina R. Co., 122 N. C. 910. 29 S.
E. 886; Russell v. Monroe, 116 N. C.
720. 728, 21 S. E. 550, 47 Am. St. Rep.
823.

North Dakota. — • See Cameron v.
Great Northern R. Co., 8 N. D. 124,
77 N. W. 1016.

Ohio. — Schweinfurth v. Cleve-

Vol. VIII



land C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 60 Ohio
St. 215. 223. 54 N. E. 89; Baltimore
& O. R. Co. V. Whitacre, 35 Ohio
St. 627.

Oregon. — Dubiver v. City & S. R.
Co.. 44 Or. 227, 75 Pac. 693 ; McBride
V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 19 Or. 64,
23 Pac. 814; Grant v. Baker, 12 Or.
329, 7 Pac. 318. Contra, see Walsh
V. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 10 Or. 250.

P e n n s y 1 1< a n i a. — Coolbroth v.
Pennsylvania R. Co., 209 Pa. St. 433,
58 Atl. 808; Brown v. White, 206 Pa.
St. 106. 55 Atl. 848; Sopherstein v.
Bertels. 178 Pa. St. 401. 35 Atl. 1000;
Baker v. Westmoreland & C. Nat.
Gas Co., 157 Pa. St. 593, 601, 27 Atl.
789; Baker v. North East Borough,
151 Pa. St. 234. 24 Atl. 1079; Bradwell
V. Pittsburg & W. E. Pass. R. Co.,
139 Pa. St. 404, 20 Atl. 1046.

Rhode Island. — See Cassidy v.
Angell, J2 R. L 447.

Soufli Carolina. — Nohrden v.
Northeastern R. Co., 59 S. C. 87, 100,
37 S. E. 228; Carter v. Columbia &
G. R. Co., 19 S. C. 20, 28-29, 45 Am.
Rep. 754-

South Dakota. — ■ Kelley v. Ander-
son, 15 S. D. 107. 87 N. W. 579;
Smith V. Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co..
4 S. D. 71. 80-81, 55 N. W. 717-

Tennessee. — Burke v. Citizens St.
R. Co., 102 Tenn. 409, 52 S. W. 170;
Stewart t'. Nashville. 96 Tenn. 50.
33 S. W. 613. Contra, Bamberger v.
Citizens St. R. Co., 95 Tenn. 18, 31
S. W. 163, 49 Am. St. Rep. 909, 28
L. R. A. 486.

Te.vas. — Texas & P. R. Co. v.
Shoemaker. 84 S. W. 1049; Gillum
V. New York & T. S. S. Co. (Tex.
Civ. App.), 76 S. W. 232; Missouri
K. & T. R. Co. V. Gist, 31 Tex. Civ.
App. 662, 73 S. W. 857; Chicago R.
L & P. R. Co. v. Buie, 31 Tex. Civ.
App. 654, 73 S. W. 853; Marshall v.
Dallas Consol. Elec. St. R. Co. (Tex.
Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 63; Galveston
H. & S. A. R. Co. V. Jackson, 31 Tex.
Civ. App. 342, 71 S. W. 991 ; Lee v.
International & G. N. R. Co., 89 Tex.
583, 36 S. W. 63 ; Gulf C. & S. F. R.
Co. V. Shieder. 88 Tex. 152, 30 S.
W. 902, 28 L. R. A. 538; Dallas &
W. R. Co. V. Spicker, 61 Tex. 427. 48
Am. Rep. 297. Contra. Walker v.
Herron, 22 Tex. 56.

Utah. — Holland v. Oregon S. L.
R. Co., 26 Utah 209. 72 Pac. 940;
Corbett v. Oregon S. L. R. Co., 25



NEGLIGENCE.



857



In case of personal injury this rule applies equally whether or not
the injury results in death,^ and in case of injuries to children as



Utah 449, 71 Pac. 1065 ; Harrington
V. Eureka Hill Min. Co., 17 Utah 300.
53 Pac. 72,7-

Virginia. — Southern R. Co. v.
Brvant, 95 Va. 212. 220-221. 28 S. E.
183" ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Whit-
tington, 30 Gratt. 805.

IVashington. — Steele v. Northern
Pac. R. Co., 21 Wash. 287, 57 Pac. 820.

West Virginia. — McVey v. Chesa-
peake & O. R. Co., 46 W. Va. Ill,
32 S. E. 1012; Fowler v. Baltimore &
O. R. Co., 18 W. Va. 579.

Wisconsin. — Conrad v. Ellington.
104 Wis. 367. 80 N. W. 456; Green
V. Ashland Water Co., loi Wis. 258,
77 N. W. 722, 43 L. R. A. 117; Rhj-
ner v. Menasha. 97 Wis. 523, 73 N.
W. 41 ; Waterman v. Chicago & A.
R. Co., 82 Wis. 613, 634, 52 N. W.
247; Hoye V. Chicago & N. W. R.
Co., 67 Wis. I, IS, 29 N. W. 646;
Seymer v. Lake. 66 Wis. 651, 29 N.
W. 554; Randall v. North Western
Tel. Co., 54 Wis. 140, II N. W. 419,
41 Am. Rep. 17; Hoyt v. Hudson, 41
Wis. 105, 22 Am. Rep. 714. Contra,
Dressier v. Davis, 7 Wis. 527;
Chamberlain v. Milwaukee & C. R.
Co., 7 Wis. 425.

An instruction putting the burden
of proof on plaintiff to show that the
injury was caused from lack of or-
dinary care on the part of the person
injured is error. O'Brien v. Tatum,
84 Ala. 186, 4 So. 158; Little Rock
& Ft. S. R. Co. V. Eubanks, 48 Ark.
460, 475, 3 S. W. 808, 3 Am. St. Rep.
245 ; Heckle v. Southern Pacific Co.,
123 Cal. 441, 56 Pac. 56; Wortman v.
Minich, 28 Ind. App. 31, 62 N. E.
85; Fulks V. St. Louis & S. F. R.
Co., Ill Mo. 335, 19 S. W. 818; Jor-
dan V. Asheville, 112 N. C. 743, 16 S.
E. 760.

In the absence of any evidence to
the contrary it will be presumed that
a person run down while on a rail-
road crossing took ordinary precau-
tions before entering on the cross-
ing. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v.
Steele, 29 C. C. A. 81, 84 Fed. 93;
Chicago, R. L & P. R. Co. v. Hinds,
56 Kan. 758, 44 Pac. 993.

Thus in an action for falling from
an unguarded bridge, plaintiff need
not offer evidence of his want of con-



tributory negligence, nor need he go
on the witness stand himself, to war-
rant a recovery. Hays v. Gallaglicr,
72 Pa. St. 136, Thompson, C. J., dis-
senting.

8. Rule Applies in Case of Death.
England. — See per Pollock. H,. in
Bridges v. Directors Etc. of North
London R. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 213. 223.

United States. — Ward v. Danip-
skibselskabet Kjocbcnhaven, 136 Fed.
502; Baltimore & P. R. Co. 7'. Land-
rigan, 191 U. S. 461. 474; Heming-
way V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 52 C.
C. A. 477, 1 14 Fed. 843 ; Chesapeake &
O. R. Co. V. Steele. 29 C. C. A. 81.
84 Fed. 93; Toledo P. & W. R. C<v
f. Chisholm. 27 C. C. A. 663, 81 Fed.
652; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gentry.
163 U. S. 353. 366; Horn v. Balti-
more & O. R. Co., 4 C. C. A. 346,
54 Fed. 301.

Aricona. — Southern Pacific Co. :•.
Tomlinson, 4 Ariz. 126, 33 Pac. 710.

California. — Heckle z,: Southern
Pacific Co., 123 Cal. 441, 56 Pac. 56;
Nehrbas v. Central Pac. R. Co.. 62
Cal. 320, 334.

Colorado. — Denver & P. G. R. Co.
V. Ryan, 17 Colo. .98. 28 Pac. 79.

Delaware. — Reed v. Queen Anne's
R. Co.. 4 Pen. 413. 57 Atl. 529; Cox
V. Wilmington City R. Co., 4 Pen.
162, 53 Atl. 569.

Indiana. — Southern R. Co. v.
Davis (Ind. App.), 72 N. E. 1053;
Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Robinson,
157 Ind. 232, 61 N. E. 197.

K a II s a s. — Kansas City-Leaven-
wordi R. Co. V. Gallagher, 75 Pac.
469; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Moffatt,
60 Kan. 113. 55 Pac. 837; Atchison
T. & S. F. R. Co. V. Aderhold, 58
Kan. 293. 49 Pac. 83.

Kentuckx. — Louisville & N. R.
Co. V. Clark, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1375- 49
S. W. 3-23.

Louisiana. — Buechner v. New Or-
leans, 112 La. 599, 36 So. 603, 66 L. R.
A. 334-

Maryland. — State v. Baltimore &
P. R. Co., 58 Md. 482.

Mississipl^i. — Hickman v. Kansas
City, M. & B. R. Co., 66 Miss. 154. 5
So. 225.

Missouri. — Riska v. Union Depot
R. Co., 180 Mo. 168, 79 S. W. 445;

Vol. VIII



858



NEGLIGENCE.



well as to other persons." In Indiana, however, this rule applies
in case of injury to the person only, and not to cases of injury to
property,^" and in Massachusetts applies only where a person is
killed by a train at a highway crossing.^ ^ The fact that plaintiff
avers freedom from contributory negligence does not alter the rule.'''
Nor does the fact that plaintiff puts in evidence tending to show
contributory negligence.^^



Weller v. Chicago. M. & St. P. R.
Co.. 164 Mo. 180. 64 S. W. 141;
Crumpley v. Hannibal & St. J. R.
Co., Ill Mo. 152. 19 S. W. 820;
Buesching v. St. Louis Gaslight Co.,
73 Mo. 219, 229. 39 Am. Rep. 503.

Nebraska. — Union Stock Yards
Co. V. Conoyer, 41 Neb. 617, 625. 59
N. W. 950.

North Carolina. — Cox v. Norfolk
& C. R. Co., 123 N. C. 604, 31 S. E.
848; Wood V. Bartholomew. 122 N.
C. 177, 29 S. E. 959-

North Dakota. — See Cameron v.
Great Northern R. Co., 77 N. W.
1016.

Oregon. — McBride v. Northern
Pac. R. Co., 19 Or. 64, 23 Pac. 814;
Grant v. Baker, 12 Or. 329. 7 Pac.
318.

Pennsylvania. — Schum v. Pennsyl-
vania R. Co., 107 Pa. St. 8, 52 Am.
Rep. 468; Weiss v. Pennsylvania R.
Co., 79 Pa. St. 387; Cleveland & P.
R. Co. V. Rowan, 66 Pa. St. 393.

S o u t Ji Carolina. — Carter v.
Columbia & G. R. Co., 19 S. C. 20,
28-29, 45 Am. Rep. 754.

r^;t:a.f. — Texas & P. R. Co. v.
Shoemaker, 84 S. W. 1049.

Virginia. — Southern R. Co. v.



Online LibraryEdgar W. (Edgar Whittlesey) CampThe Encyclopædia of evidence (Volume 8) → online text (page 120 of 143)