Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-03-22
RAILROADS ON THE STREETS.
Their Rights and Respons SbQifjes.
Grant ". h. d p. Rallroad-IuSsrue-
tions OF the COurtLVerdict for
the PlatDtfG

hne fnoI0t1m.
This morning the jury in the Circuit Court.
Judge Cartier, In the case OF ]. II. Grant agt.
the B. 4 +. railroad, returneda sealed verdict
for plaintiff, assessing damages at 81 $50. The
plaintln sued for :. eco for damages alleged
TO have been sustained by having his toes
caught between freight cars of the defend
ant, on Maryland avenue, in this city.
As the law involved In the case Is en-
braced in the Instructions given by the court
and the points decided are of peculiar inter-
est just now, when the question of the ri gifts
of railroads in the streets is under discussion,
we print the prayers of counsel for defendant
i'm full. all having been granted by the c0urs.
Tney are as follows:
/. That if the jury shall find from the evil
deBc that the injury complained OF would
not have occurred If the plaintiff, i'm crossing
Maryland avenue. had no. attempted to get
upOn the freight train of The defendant. at
the time In motion, at the intersection or
Maryland avenue and 9Th street and that he
could have crossed Maryland avenue i'm sac
W ny walking less than square, and passing
around the train, of which said cars formet a
part, then he is not entitled to recover in this
ease.
2. If the jury believe from the evidence
mat at the time the plaintiff got upon the
freight train OF defendant the said train was
moving forward and had reached and partly
passed the In .ersection OF Maryland avenue
anu 9ih street. thus forming continuous
train on Mary laBd avenue across the Gro +
ing of Maryland avenue and 9Th street. and
that said train was stopped and that in COLI
d
the two freight cars, between which the foot
OF the plaintiff was placed, were brought viO-
leDtly together, thus cruShing the foot of the
pla'ntih. then the act of the plainiif in
getting upon said Train was such want Of
ordinary care as contributed directly TO the
injury. and he cannot recover.
3. IL the jury shall lind that the plaintiff
did not exercise proper care and prudence In
crossing Maryland avenue at its intersec
tiOn with 9th street. by attempting TO pass
across the train Of the defendant, ami that
occurred n no
want Of proper care and prudence on his
part, then the plaintiff is not entitled to re-
cover. although the jury may further find
that at the time the plaintiff attempted TO
pass across the said train of the defendant
the train was temporarily blocking the cross
ing at the Intersection of Maryland avenue
and 9th street.
4. That the proper care which the plaintiff
was bound To use in crossing Maryland ave-
nue. at Its intersection with 9th street was
Such care as man OF ordinary prudence AID
discretion ought to use i'm the circumstances
III which he was placed, and not such case as
man OF ordinary prudence and discretion
B,igia sometimes use, under like circurn-
stances 10 avoid obs tructions in the highway
and If the jury find that the plaintiff at
tempted To cross over the train of thedefend-
ant between two freight cars while the train
was In motion and before the train had come
TO a full stop. this was not the exercise of
proper care on the part OF the plaintiff. and
he cannot recover for any injury received by
BIN while so attempting to cross over the
train.
5. The defendant. under the act Of Congress
approved Feb 9th, 1867 and the several SUD-
PIGMENTS thereto. and i'm the use OF the freiEht
depot which the Washington. A leXandria and
GeoI Setown Railroad Company was autl1r-
lied to erect on Maryland avenue. between
9TH and 10th streets, had a right TO use the
track where it crosses Maryland avenue
at the intersection Of 9Th street, to SHIFT its
cars. IN the usual pursuit OF it's business
provided IL was done i'm reasonable man.
ner, and IL did not delay the public travel for
any unreasonable length OF time: and if The
jury snail lind that on the morning when the
accident occurred 1t was in the usual pursuit
Ofits business, and had not delayed the
plaintiff or tine public unreasonable or un-
necessarily at the time the accident occurred
then the obstruction of the said crossing by
the defendant at the time the accident oc-
CURED TO the plaintiff was not unlawful.
6. III the jury shall find from the evidence in
The cause that the defendant, prior TO Sep
TENDER 18th, 1872. by its printed orders and
rules issued TO the conductors in charge of
its freight trains, required that the public
highway should not be INSTRUCTED unseason-
ably or unnecessarily, and also that the su-
perlntendent OF thedelendantis road Edmund
l.. Dubarry, and the general agent in charge
OF the freight department. Stevens, gave sum-
liar orders TO the agents or employees in
charge of its height trains, and that ne said
superintendent and general agent also di-
rected the conductors and employees i'm
charge of its freight trains not to allow per
sons To pass across its trains while the same
were in motion, or while engines were at
tached TO the same, and that persons were
warned not 10 pass across the said trains
while In motion, or while an engine was at
tached thereto, and that Notwithstanding the
said orders some persons passed across the
said trains prior to September 18th, 1872,
while the same were blocking the crossing
al the iEiersect ON of Maryland avenue and
Oh street, and that Other persons passed
reno s said trains and were not
stopped or prevented from cross
and other inferior employees of the defendsnt
not in charge of the trains then such IaSy-
ing of persons across the said trains on other
oceasioL and such failure on the part OF the
said employees not in charge of the trains to
prevent or IOIewarn the said persons tom
crossing the sad trains did not constitute or
mount 10 a license or authority from the
defendant TO the public TO use the trains of
The defendant, when in motion, or when an
engine was attached thereto, a. a part OF the
public highway for passing and repassing
over the same: nor did IL impose upon the de-
iendant the duty and obligation of securing
10 the public a safe passage across its trains
as part OF the public highway; and the Jury,
II they find the aforeSOiDg facts, canPot con-
slider the same iOr the purpose of relieving
the piaDtifi IrOm the obligation TO use ordi-
nary care in crossing the said avenue al 9Th
street at the time when the accident oc-
CURED.
=. If the jury shall find from the evidence
that 10 was dangerous for the plaintiff 10
cross the train of the defendant while al en-
CINE was attached to the same, and that in
attempting to cross the said train he did not
exercise ordinary care and prudence, then
the fact that other persons had crossed the
trains OF the defendant while an engine YVES
attached TO the same prior 10 September
18th, 1872, and had not been stopped by the
employees OF the defendant. If they shall so
hnd.) did not relieve the plaintiff from the
obligation TO exercise ordinary care and prt-
dence in crossing said avenue, or impose
upon the defendant or its agents the duty
and obligation OF exercising more than Orli-
nary care and prudence i'm l;le management
of the train at the lime the plaintiff was
crossing the said avenue. and he received his
injury.
;. If the jury find from the evidence ina the
cause that the plaintiff Jumped on the arain
of The defendant after the same had stepped
uIo1 an ascending grade and before the bull
roses OF the cars, between which the plain-
TN passed, had come together. and that
while the plaintiff was attempting 20 cross
the train the bull-noseS came together and
caught the foot of Inc plainiiff without the
engine being either cut loose from the train
or being reversed after the tram stOpped but
ny reason OF the force of steam i'm the Staa m
chest being spent. and the action of tifa law
Of gravitatiOn upon the train, then the iury
must End that the injury 10 the plaintiff did
rot re9ult from the want of proper care OF
the defendant in the management % the
train and the plaintiff is not entitled TO re-
cover.
q If the jury shall find that after the plain
tn jumped on the freight train OF the Defend
ant the defendant or its agents could not
have prevented the Injury 20 the plaintih nv