162 Ind. 442 | Ind. | 1904
This action was brought by the administrator of the estate of Robert A. Boblett, .deceased, against the Chicago & Erie Railroad Company, to recover damages on account of injuries resulting in the death of Boblett, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the railroad company. The complaint was in a single paragraph, . and the answer a general denial. The cause was tried by a jury, who returned a general verdict for the plaintiff, with answers to numerous questions of fact. The court sustained defendant’s motion for judgment in its favor on the answers of the jury to the questions submitted to them. The plaintiff appeals, and the ruling on the motion for judgment is the error assigned.
Omitting its formal parts, the complaint stated the following facts: On August 5, 1899, and for more than one year previous to that date, the appellee owned and operated a line of railroad extending from. Chicago, Illinois, to and through Decatur, Indiana; said railroad passed through the city of Decatur from east to west, intersecting a public street of said city running from north to south, and known as Third street. In addition to i'ts main track, so intersecting said street, the appellee maintained a side-track on the south side of the main track, and parallel with it,
The answers of the jury to the questions submitted to them establish these facts: Third street was one of the public streets of the city of Decatur, and was sixty feet wide. Two tracks of the appellee’s railroad, described as
Counsel for appellant say in their brief: “These findings, taken in connection with the allegations of the complaint and the evidence which could have been introduced
The effect of the general verdict is that the railroad company was negligent in moving its train westward on the side-track, and that no signal of the starting or approach of said train was given by the ringing of the' bell, the sounding of the whistle, or otherwise. The only question is whether negligence on the part of the decedent contrib-uted to produce the injury complained of. In other words, do'the answers of the jury show that, as a matter of law, the decedent himself was negligent, and that his wafit of care for his Own safety was one of the causes of the accident and injury.
Railroad crossings on streets and highways have always been recognized as places of extraordinary danger, and, when passing over the intersecting tracks, all persons competent to exercise care for their own protection and safety are required by the law to use their faculties of sight and hearing, when such use is possible, and to act upon the presumption that engines or trains may be expected to pass in either direction at any moment. It is also a matter of common knowledge that trains are often moved backward along the track, and that when running slowly they make but little noise. ' The place of danger at a street crossing is upon the track, and within a short distance outside the rails. If a traveler voluntarily or without reasonable cause stops on the track, or so near it as
In the present case the tracks of the appellee were straight, and the view from the point where the decedent stood was unobstructed for more than three hundred feet eastward, and upwards of six hundred feet westward. While standing still, the western end of the train which afterwards struck the decedent was about two hundred fifty feet eastward from him, and in plain view all the time. When it started toward him, at a speed of four or five miles per hour, if the decedent had looked in its direction, he must have seen it before it reached Third street, and ample time would have been afforded him to get off the track. The circumstance that his attention was directed to a train passing on the north track constituted no excuse for his failure to observe the train approaching him on the south track, nor for his negligence in standing upon the south track, or very near to it. If the movement of the train on the north track filled the air with dust,
The answers of the jury established the fact of contributory negligence on the part of the decedent. This being so, there could be no recovery by the plaintiff, and the court did not err in rendering judgment for the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.