The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-01-31
HodJ. SoadabomM
"a J;y.7EYE

!
-----...--...-,-
defendant, Wilson, was driving same, or
in any other respects, then you should
find for the defendants.
You are further instructed that in con-
sidering the question as TO whether or
not the plaintiff was negligent in any Of
the premises, you may take into consid-
Grafton the question as to what, If any.
voice or authority he had in the manage
ment or control of the team drawing the
vehicle in which he was riding and as to
what, if any. authority he had or as
sumed over the driver Of said team, and
| as TO plaintiffs knowledge or means OF
knowledge of the fitness or competency
Of said driver, and as to what a person Of
ordinary care and prudence would do IN
der like circumstances; and, having re-
/ garded all the surrounding facts and cir
! cumstances, you are 10 say whether the
plaintiff himself did anything which a
! person Of ordinary prudence would not
! have done under similar circumstances,
| or whether he omitted to do anything
/ which a person Of ordinary prudence
would not have omitted under similar cir
cumstances; and If you find that the
/ plaintiff himself was not guilty Of any
/ carelessness in the premises. and that he
received any OF the injuries complained
Of in the manner and under the circum-
! stances charged, and as direct result Of
the negligence charged, then your verdict
should be for the plaintiff in this action.
you are further instructed that if, I'M
der the law as announced by the instruc-
tons and from the evidence, you find for
plaintiff, and find that plaintiff received
the injuries complained Of without negli-
gence on his part. but solely by reason Of
and as the direct result of the negligence
charged against only one Of the defend
ants, then you should find your verdict
against such defendant only. whichever
one that may be, whether the defendant
Wilsan or the defendant railway COM
pany; that is. if one of the defendants
caused plaintiff to suffer the injuries
complained Of, in the manner and under
the circumstances charged and without
plaintiffs fault, but solely because of the
negligence charged against such defend
ant. then plaintiff could recover only
against such defendant guilty of such
negligence.
You are instructed that IN the use Of
defendant railway company and Wilson
the driver Of the vehicle, and the plaintiff
were each required to exercise ordinary
care, that is. that degree of care and
diligence as a man Of ordinary prudence
and caution would exercise under like
circumsta noes. And if you find that plain
tiff did exercise such care and caution.
and that. on the other hand. the railway
company and Wilson. the driver of the
vehicle both failed to exercise such care
and caution. and that the railway COM
pany was guilty of the negligence eharg- /
ed against 1t, and the driver. Wilson,
guilty Of the negligence. charged against /
him, and that such negligence Of each,
substantially and directly contributed 10
the collision and that plaintiff received
the injuries complained Of in the manner
and under the circumstances charged. and /
without plaintiffs fault in the premises. |
then Your verdict should be for the plain /
tiT and against both defendants: Provid- /
ed, however. you further find that driver |
Wilson had sole charge Of the vehicle (
and animals drawing same and that !
plaintiff had no control over said driver /
and did no more than 70 direct him as 70 /
the place to which he wished 10 be con /
veyed.
You are further instructed that. |
though the railroad company and the I
public have equal rights at the iutersec-
ton Of the track Of the former with the
public highway. the traveller upon the
hishway is bound TO know that he must /
yield precedence TO trains. and he has n, /
right to expect them 10 stop and Weld /
him priority % passage.
you are further instructed. that IN de- /
te-miuinE the questions Of care or regli- /
gencA Of the several parties in this action.
a the time ana place in question, YOU (
are instructed that the defendant Railway +
company would have no right 10 care
lessIy interfere with a. proper and reason
able use of the Douglas avenue crossing
by defendant wilson. or plaintiff. E0-
would Wilson or plaintiff have a right to 4
interfere with such use Of the crossing
BIZ the railway company While the prior I
richt OF passage was in the railway CON-
panv vet this right did not Impose u7on
defendant wilson or ,he 7laiatlT TIRE
whole duty a. avoiding rhe collision. SIT
81 IF the parties were CHASED With the
mutual duty Of exercising reasonable care
TO f7reses snd avoid the collision and
TO this end. the trainuen. In charge 81 the
train. were required 20 use reasonable
care to keep thsi- train in proper cortrai
while approaching the crossing ard 10
give reasonable warnings 81 the a77rcac en-
az the train 20 the hi-hwaS; and, i Is fo-
the jury 10 determine. from the evidence
as 10 the manner Of the trains appToach
and entry on the crossing at said tire,
and as 60 what WARNINGS Il the approach
OF the train were given, and as 70 whether
the men in charge u the train exercised
ordinary care in the premises. CT was
guilty OF the negligence charged
Ard in this connection. yoa are further
that IT Is for You 10 determine.
from al The circumstance surrounding