Case ID: ohio-law-abs_6/html/0123-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DENISON, CJ.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PENNSYLVANIA RD. CO. v. STEGAMAN
    Circuit Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit.
    No. 4639.
    Decided Oct. 14, 1927.
    991. RAILROADS — 829. Negligence — 941. Practice and Procedure.
    Passenger not responsible for driver’s failure to look for coming train, at country crossing.
    
      Assuming negligence of railroad, failure of bus driver to observe statutory duty to ascertain whether train was coming, held not proximate cause of collision injuring passenger; such failure being no more than contributory negligence, for which passengers in bus were not responsible.
    2. Giving statutory warning signals imperative.
    Error in submitting issues where railroad was negligent in running trains at excessive speed, or in failing to give warning signals in addition to those required by statute, held to require reversal even though it was probable that the jury would, in any event have found that railroad was negligent in failing to give statutory signals.
    3. Speed of trains in country may be such as operators deem safe, where no legal regulation exists.
    Failure of general assembly to regulate speed of trains in the country, impliedly warrants railroads in running their trains in the country at such rate of speed as those in charge.may deem safe.
    4. Existence of fog — maintenance of ordinary speed over crossings, sufficient.
    Where crossing signals required by 8853 Ohio GC. are given, the 'maintenance of ordinary speed over crossings during fog gives no independent basis for a conclusion that railroad is negligent.
    5. Repeated signals not required.
    The mere existence of a fog, obscuring view of train approaching crossing and striking a bus and injuring a passenger therein, held insufficient to justify jury in finding that duty existed to repeat crossing signals, if given as required by 8853 Ohio GC.
    941, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.
    Submission of a special issue by the judge, sua sponte.
    The trial judge may often, on his own motion submit a' special issue, with benefit to the public interest.
    Error to U. S. District Court. N. D. 0. Killits, J.
    Geo. R. Effler, Toledo, and Wheeler & Bently, Lima, for Railroad.
    Geo. W. Ritter, Toledo, Hoke & Wright, Van Wert, and Ritter & Brumbach, Toledo, for Stegaman.
   DENISON, CJ.

Action by defendant Arthur Stegaman against The Penna. Railroad Go. on account of death of his minor son. Judgment for plaintiff reversed by this decision.

(Denison and Moorman, CJJ., and Hough, PJ.)

For full opinion, see 22 Fed. Rep. (2’d) 69.