Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-07-07
RAILR0AD CROSSINGS.
An Important Decision by the Supreme
Court

An Important Decision by the Supreme
Court
A decision of the supreme court was filed
yesterday, affirming the judgment of the dis
trict court of Ramsey, awarding damages
to Mrs. Margaret Shaber. widow of Henry
Shaber killed last summer by an engins on
the st. Paul g. Manitoba railroad, at the La
fayette street CROSSING The decision very
clearly lays down the duty of railroad cempa
nies in taking precautions for the protection
of human life at such crossings, and is as fol,
lows:
Margaret Shaber, administrator of Henry
Shaber, deceased, respondent, vs.. the ST. Paul,
Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company.
appellant.
Syllabus Evidence considered and held suf-
fclent to sustain a finding that there was neg
ligence on the part of defendant, and none On
the part of the person killed at a railroad
crossing.
The acton being for negligence In causing
the death of plaintiffs intestate, by running
locomotive over him at street crossing, the
accident having happened in the dark, i'm
mediately after another train with bright
headlight had passed the crossing, held it was
proper under the circumstances, to admit evil
dence how long the eye requires after looking
at brilliant light to recover its natural power
of sight.
In an action made, sec. 3, ch. II. genera,
statutes 1878, evidence of the amount Of prop
erty deceased had acquired, his habits ef In
dustry, his ability to make money and his sue
cess in business, Is proper as basis for the
damage.
In an action against railroad company for
negligence In running one at street crossing,
evidence that the company had no sign over
the crossing to warn persons approaching of
its presence is proper, although there be no
statute or ordinance requiring the company to
have such a sign.
1t is for the jury to say whether the omis-
sion to have such sign is negligence. And
1t is for them to say whether it contributed to
the injury, even where 1t appears that the per.
son injured was familiar with the crossing.
II ordinary care and prudence, and due regard
for the safety of third persons, require engines
and trains to run at less rate of speed than
that limited by an ordinance of the
city, the company must observe such
care and prudence. When the rate of speed at
which the engine causing the injury was run
ming at the time is in controversy, upon the
evidences, the plaintiff to sustain his other
evidence on the point may show that the en-
gines OF the company naturally run under like
circumstances with the one in question, at the
rate indicated by his other evidence. Evideu Z
that the company Immediately after an acc
dent at street crossing adopted certain pr.
cautions to prevent similar accidents, Is ad-
missable to prove that such precautions would
have been proper at and prior to the accident,
and that the omission of them was negligence.
An instruction that it is not necessarily the
duty of traveller approaching railroad cross
ing to stop and listen before stepping upon
the track, and that whether it is necessary and
proper for him to stop, depends on the cir
cumstances OF the case, is not erronious.
Order affirmed. GILFILLAN. CT.