Search -
American railroad and corporation reports (v. 2)
American railroad and corporation reports - v. 2 Author:John Lewis Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: to do so. If we now say, or permit a jury to say, that it is negligence to ring at a crossing, what rule would the company or its gripman have to guide them in s... more »uch cases? Aside from this, if the gripman saw that plaintiff's horses were restive, it does not follow that he had any reason to apprehend the accident that occurred. The plaintiff, according to his own testimony, was at their heads, and might naturally be supposed to be able to control them. There is no analogy between this case and the use of a steam-whistle wantonly blown in a crowded place. The steam- whistle naturally tends to alarm horses; the traction bell does not. What was said of a steam road in Railroad v. Stinger, 78 Penn. St. 21!, is applicable here: "We have held these corporations to a strict line of responsibility for the failure to give sufficient warning of the approach of their trains at road crossings. It would not be just to them, nor safe to the traveling public, for us now to criticise too closely the precise amount of noise employed in giving the needed warning at such places." We may supplement these remarks by saying that, in view of the crowded condition of the streets of the city of Philadelphia, the number of women and children and of aged and infirm persons who are constantly crossing the tracks of the traction company, not only at street intersections, but elsewhere, we would be loth to sanction a principle which would make a gripman hesitate to ring every time his hand touched the bell rope. Judgment affirmed. Frightening horses and cattle— The following cases relate to the liability of railroad companies for damages resulting from the frightening of horses and cattle by blowing off steam, ringing bells, blowing whistle, etc. Toledo, etc., R.Co. v. Harman, 47 11l. 293; Chicago, etc., R. ...« less