Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-04-10
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vlRcINlAN- PILOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People
Supreme Court Of Illinois.
-------- --- nanafnhar. 10 1000
c. & E. I. r, co. v. HINES.

December 18, 1899.
A RAILROAD COMPANY IS LIABLE
FOR INJURY FLICT e D
THROUGH IT'S NEGLIGENCE TO
A STREET-CAR PASSENGER, BY
A COLLISION, THOUGH THE AC-
CIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE HAP
PENED BUT FOR THE CONTRI-
BUTING NEGLIGENCE OF THE
EMPLOYEES OF THE STREET
CAR COMPANY.
This was an action by Hines against
the railroad company for injuries
caused him while a passenger on a
street car by a collision between q train
of the railroad company and the street
car. The train was being run at a rate
Of speed prohibited by an ordinance of
the city Of Chicago. There was judg-
ment for plaintiff and defendant APP
pealed.
The court says:
There was sufficient evidence for the
jury to find that. Notwithstanding the
negligence of the men in charge of the
street car In running upon the crossing
when the gates were down, the car
would have passed safely over after 1t
was seen by the fireman, il the en-
CINE and train had not been running
at speed exceeding ten miles an hour.
Controverted questions of fact not be-
Ing oDen to us for review, we must, in
support of the verdict assume all that
the evidence most favorable to appellee
fairly tends to prove, though II he
against the weight of the evidence. The
mere fact that the injury would not
have happened but for the negligence
of the employees of the street railway
company Is not sufficient to exonerate
appellant, for. If Hines was injured by
the combined negligence of both COM
panies, he can maintain an action
against either Affirmed.
NICHOLSON v. PHILADELPHIA.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
January 49, 1900.
ONE INJURED BY STEPPING ON A
LOOSE BRICK ON a STREET IS
NOT GUILTY AS A MATTER OF
LAW OF CONTRADICTORY NEGLI-
GENCE UNDER THE CIRCUM-
STANCES OF THIS CASE.
This was an action for damages for
injury to Mary Nicholson by stepping
on a loose brick in a street pavement
in Philadelphia. From Il judgment for
her the city appealed.
The court says:
The negligence OF the officials of the
city whose duty 1t was to keeps the
pavement In repair, in not needing the
frequent reports of the police officers
as to the condition of the pavement In
question. was SO manifest that the YER
diet OF the jury was inevitable on that
subject. On the question OF the plain
tiff's contributory negligence the case
was for the jury. and 1T was carefully
committed to them by the learned trial
judge, and found in favor OF the plain
TIL. Upon an examination of the testi-
mOnX cannot TINT thnrn
ror in leaving this question to
che jury; on the ground that the con-
tributory negligence of the plaintiff was
so apparent that the court was bound
to treat 1T as question of law. The
pavement was out of repair, but there
was no open hole in it, or in the ground
underneath the bricks. Nor we're the
bricks absent. They were loose owing
to the crumblng of the mortar which
held them together, but they were there
and many of them in place. Some were
displaced and some were broken It does
not necessarily follow that injury will
result from treading on such pave
ment. The fact that this condition of
the pavement had continued for n num-
Der OF weeks without any reported ac-
cident having occurred when 1t must
have been trodden by great numbers
OF persons. is strong proof that it was
not necessarily dangerous. It Is also
testified that it's real condition was not
apparent to PEDESTRIAN until it was
reached; that is. 1t looked like an ordi-
nary pavement to one approaching, I'M
til he was about to tread upon It, It
was also In evidence that the plaintiff
was incumbered with various articles in
her hands and arms at the moment of
the accident. being engaged in moving
from her former residence to another
In these circumstances she could not
be expected to keep up so careful a
look out for defects In the pavement as
an ordinary foot passenger entirely un-
encountered. In view of these special
facts in the situation. 1T was the duty
of the court to leave the question of
contributory negligence to the jury. AZ
fiimed.
" On -