The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-02-20
HE DIDN'T TRESPASS
Egan Had a Right to Walk on the
Railroad Track.
JUDGE KNOWLES DECISION
The Marsh and Cannon Case-Mc-
Andrews VS.. the Utah Northern
Other Matters In the
United States Court.

oHtNed otdtoS SouTLs
Judge Knowles, in the United States
court, made several important decisions
in ruling on demurrers yesterday morn
ing. In the damage case of Michael
Egan against the Great Northern rail-
road. in which a former demurrer had
been sustained. the court overruled the
demurrer to the amended complaint and
decided. practically, that a person had
more right to walk on a railroad track
inside the limits of a city or town than
out in the country. and that the rule
OF trespass was not the same In both
cases. In his opinion overruling the
demurrer, which was reduced to writ
ing and is quite long and exhaustive,
Judge Knowles says the complaint sets
forth a case of personal injury occa-
stoned by being struck by one of the
defendants trains 1t is claimed that
the collision occurred through the neg
hgence Of the defendant who runs a
road past the Hope mine, where the
plaintiff worked. In going from the
mine to his lodging in the town of Ba-
sin the plaintiff was accustomed to
pass along the track of the railroad
about so rods. 1t is alleged that in 60
ing to and from his work at the mine
he and other miners were compelled TO
walk on the railroad track for a dis
lance of about 80 rods. The mine is on
the south side of the track and about
SO rods west Of a highway crossing,
which highway crosses the Boulder
river and is a public road. There is no
other route for any one to travel in
going to the mine except on the track
down to the highway and the employees
at the mine were compelled to use that
route.
The railroad company and its en-
the track was so used and had knowl- |
edge Of such fact long prior to the date
or the accident, but II Is alleged on the |
occasion complained of the defendant |
In reckless disregard OF the lives of per- |
sons on the track and at the hour of |
IL O'Clock when the defendant knew the |
Hope miners were using the track a !
train came along at high and unusual
rate OF speed and without giving any
notice or signal CT its approach, and /
the plaintiff had no notice of the COM
ing train until he was struck by IL. The
plaintiff, II was alleged, exercised due
care and the defendant was negligent |
The defendant contends because the |
plalntin was upon its track not at any
highway or road crossing the defend
ant owed him no duty, but not to will
tully in1ure him. The court cited diff
ferent authorities and said there seems
TO be very good authority for holding
that when railroad train in passing
through town or village where there
are likely to be persons upon the
track, especially when such persons
cannot be classed as trespassers. the
railroad company should keep a proper
lookout for such persons. In the pres
ent case IL Is alleged that the engineer
oI the train was directing his attention
to the rear of the train, looking for
signals. and was not looking ahead
In somewhat similar case from Min
nesota Judge Shiras of the United
states court decided that the company
was responsible for the injuries caused
by reason Of the engineer and fireman
going to the rear of the train. Judge
knowles said there is no difference be-
tween the act of lookout directing his
attention to the rear of the car and 60
ng to the rear thereof. Other cases
we're also cited and the court said IL
seemed to be pretty well settled that
Nhen a person is a trespasser upon n
abroad track and is injured by a pass
ng train he can recover only where the
injury Is inflicted wilfuIly or by negIi-
renee so gross as to amount to a will
uI INJURY. but in the Egan case, IL the
acts are as alleged the PLAINTIFF can
'thers had been accustomed to use the
rack OF the defendant as the only way
II passing from and to the Hone mine
mis- was known to the defendant and
Is employees. The part of the track
nus used was within the limits of the I
own OF Basin. This state of facts re-
lures or the defendant to keep a look
ut for foot travellers on about so rods
T Its track at the point named A fail
IRE TO do this was negligence. II the
lalntin was guilty of no contributory ..
egligence the defendant would be La
lie for the injury inflicted.
With these views of the law of this
ase. said Judge Knowles in conclu- :
ion, the demurrer will be overruled."
-ttorney Mcintyre of Helena repre-
ented the railroad in the case and !
ohm w. Cotter of Butte appeared for
he plaintiff. Q
Another decision was made in the !
ase of the United States government
gainst Marsh and Cannon, a suit To ?
p aside and annul a patent to the :,
round covered by the Parrot srnelter. '
Mich was alleged to have been OBJ :
ldned by fraud and INSTRUMENTATION
he defense demurred to the complaint
nd the arguments We're made about a =
eek ago. Judge Knowles yesterday :
orning overruled the demurrer hold .
y that the bill states a cause in | =
Iuity so far as the United States is =
'ncerned, but he said that so far as ;,
e purchase by the Parrot company a
ent the complaint was rather indefin- !,
e in showing when or from whom the =
irchase was made or how II came in
possession of the ground. On the ! =.
hole, however. the complaint stated =
cts sufficient 10 constitute a cause of | -
'tion. The defendants were granted | :.
days In which To file an answer. -
McADdrsws' Case Continued 10
The damage case of McAndrews -
'ainst the receivers of the Oregon Il
,rrf In /