Craig v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad

150 N.W. 374, 97 Neb. 426, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 383
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 18, 1914
DocketNo. 17,877
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 150 N.W. 374 (Craig v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Craig v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad, 150 N.W. 374, 97 Neb. 426, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 383 (Neb. 1914).

Opinion

Letton, J.

Plaintiff’s intestate was killed while driving over a railroad crossing in the village of Lyons. This action is for damages for the wrongful death of the deceased.

In substance, the petition alleges that there is a mill and elevator to the west of the railroad track in Lyons, Nebraska,^near Main street; that a large number of teams [427]*427are constantly passing to and fro over the railroad crossing: at that point; that on the 11th day of May, 1911, the plaintiff’s son, Zell Craig, a young man about 18 years of age,, and Catherine Craig, plaintiff’s wife, while driving from the mill across the track, were struck and killed- by a1 passenger train, of which defendant Murphy was the engineer; that the view was obstructed by buildings and erections close to the track, and there was no flagman stationed or signs given at the crossing. The negligence-charged is that the defendant ran the train at a high, dangerous and unusual rate of speed, failure to ring a hell or blow the whistle when the train was at least 80 rods from the crossing, and to keep the same ringing or whistling; until the crossing was passed, and the failure to stop the-train after defendant railroad’s servants kneAV that the-team was upon the crossing.

The answer denies negligence, and pleads contributory negligence. It also pleads by Avay of counterclaim that, by the carelessness of the Craigs, the train was derailed and damages inflicted to the track, the cars and the engine in the sum of $1,015. A similar answer was filed by the engineer of the train, except that in his counter-claim he alleges personal injuries to himself caused by the derailment. Plaintiff had judgment against both defendants for-$'7,000, and defendants appeal.

The undisputed facts or those clearly proved will first be stated, and the testimony as to other material matters,, narrated, omitting matter covered by the general statement.

Lyons is a village Avith a population of about 1,000 people. Main street, shoAvn upon the accompanying plat, is the business street of the town, and the larger part of the business is transacted in the two blocks immediately east of the railroad crossing. The railroad station is 1,480 feet south of the crossing, and there is a slight upgrade from-the crossing to the station. Prom 150 to 400 people cross-the tracks at this crossing every day; a large number of them going to the mill, elevator and ■ other buildings to-the west of the track. A continuation of the street is also-[428]*428the main highway to the well-settled farming country lying to the west of town. The mill and elevator are separated by a distance of from 20 to 23 feet, and this is narrowed by a platform on the side of the mill, used for loading and unloading and for access to the building. Both the mill and elevator are operated by water power from the-Logan river; the dam being close to the mill. There is a direct conflict in the testimony as to whether a box car was standing on the sideütrack near the south end of [429]*429the elevator, but the jury evidently found that the car was there and obstructed the view. From the center of the main line to the center of the side-track at the crossing is 14 feet, 10 inches. The ground slopes upward slightly from the driveway between the mill and elevator to- the railway. Parties desiring to load or unload at the mill would drive north between the mill and elevator, but in order to return were compelled to drive beyond the mill and make a sharp turn, coming back through the driveway by which they entered. There is a sharp curve in the railroad north of the elevator, so that looking north from the mill platform, and from the turning place still further north, a view of the railroad can he had extending to the northwest for more than half a mile, and the view of the track from immediately west of the crossing is cut off by the elevator. There is a dam with an eight-foot fall close by the mill on the west, and this and the machinery of the mill made the locality of the driveway more or less noisy. On the morning of the accident Zell Craig, accompanied by his mother, Catherine Craig, drove to the mill with a grist, unloaded it upon the platform, drove north to the turn, and came back through the driveway, There was a strong wind blowing, but there is a conflict as to whether it was from the north or south. There is testimony .that one of the horses that Craig was driving was a broncho which was not well broken, but this we think is not material, since there is no proof of fractious or unruly conduct on the part of this animal at this time. The estimates as to the speed of the train vary from 25 to 35 miles an hour, but. we are satisfied from the proofs that it was running at least at the rate of 30 miles as it approached the crossing.. The proof is that the statutory signals were given, and the court so instructed the jury.

[428]

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

Related

Roy E. Bailey v. Coy W. Pennington
274 F.2d 328 (Eighth Circuit, 1960)
Ecker v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
83 N.W.2d 551 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1957)
Kennedy v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad
56 N.W.2d 446 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1953)
Goodhart v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
19 N.W.2d 549 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1945)
Crecelius ex rel. Crecelius v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc.
13 N.W.2d 627 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1944)
Cantrell v. Owen
13 N.W.2d 408 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1944)
Chew v. Coffin
12 N.W.2d 839 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1944)
Fulcher v. Ike
6 N.W.2d 610 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1942)
Hickey v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.
1 N.W.2d 304 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1941)
Luther v. Farmers Union Cooperative Ass'n
230 N.W. 662 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1930)
Boomer v. Lancaster County
212 N.W. 613 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1927)
Bradley v. Missouri Pac. R.
288 F. 484 (Eighth Circuit, 1923)
Morris v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
163 N.W. 799 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 N.W. 374, 97 Neb. 426, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-v-chicago-st-paul-minneapolis-omaha-railroad-neb-1914.