Case ID: ohio-st_40/html/0338-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Pennsylvania Co. v. Morel.
    Error to the District Court of Van Wert County.
    
      Rush Taggart, for plaintiff in error,
    cited Penn.' Qo. v. Rathgeb, 32 Ohio St., 66; Railroad Qo. v. Hlliott, 28; Id., 340; Railroad Qo. v. Miller, 25 Mich;, ■ 274-; Purl v. 8. L. K. Q. $ W. Ry. Qo., 73 Mo., 168, reported, in 6 A. & E. R. R. cases, 27; Henze v. 8. L. if. O. <f* N. Ry. Qo., 71 Mo., 636 ; T. H. I. R. R. Qo. v. Qlarh, 73 Ind., 168; 6 A. & E. R. R. cases, 84; Tucker v. Duncan, 6 Id., 268; B. $ P. R. R. Qo. v.' Stansbury, 65 Md., 648; P. R. R. Qo. v. Righter, 42 N. J., 180 ; Salter Admx. v. U. B. R. R. Qo., 75 N. Y., 278; C.f A. R. R. Go. v. Jacobs, .63 111., 178.
    
      James D. Price, for defendant in error,
    cited Railroad Go. v. Sipes, 24 Ohio St., 631; Railroad Qo. v. Picksley, 24 Id., 654; 47 Pa. St., 300; Shearman & Redfield on Neg., §§ 13, 29, 31, 481; 46 Mo., 353; 2 Am. Rep., 517.
   By the Court.

M., approaching a railway crossing with a team drawing a loaded wagon, heard a whistle announcing the near approach of a train, but drove on without stopping, although his view was partially obstructed, and the noise of his own wagon drowned that of the train; he attempted to cross the track because he “ thought he could get across before the train would come.” The locomotive damaged his person and his wagon. Held: The fact that the view was obstructed did not excuse his neglect to stop and listen, it made his neglect to» do so greater. We think the evidence clearly proved him guilty of contributory negligence.

Judgment below reversed, new trial granted and cause remanded.