Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.

27 F. 159, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2052
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri·Decided March 24, 1886·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Treat, J.,

(orally.) The exceptions are overruled, not only for the reasons stated by the master, but for the following additional reasons: At the crossings in a populous city, where gates and watchmen are provided, passengers and pedestrians have a right to suppose when the gates are opened, and no warning to the contrary given by the watchmen, that they can proceed with entire safety. If accidents should happen through the gross negligence of the management of the gates by the watchmen connected therewith, prima facie the railway company must answer for the damages sustained, Trifling matters as to the movements of the passenger or pedestrian in crossing, under such circumstances, cannot exonerate the railway company, whose duty it was to protect said crossing, and give warning as to the safety thereof.

Master’s report confirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 27 F. 159, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2052 (circtedmo 1886).

27 F. 159 (Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crawford v. Michigan Central Railroad
173 N.W. 523 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1919)
Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. McFarren
122 N.E. 330 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1919)
Yonkers v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
168 S.W. 307 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Lockridge v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
140 N.W. 834 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1913)
Erie R. Co. v. Schultz
183 F. 673 (Sixth Circuit, 1911)
Evansville & Terre Haute Railway Co. v. Berndt
88 N.E. 612 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1909)