Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-07-14
v:sl 9A's;algsIiIssEYga

tie was not negligence" and inherited
IN their stead. defendant was not re-
, puireu 10 sound the whistle as 1t ap-
proached the crossing
Where the statute imposes upon y
Iallroid company the duty OF sounding
me whistle on its locomotive engines
asppIodching a crossing of highway
a ,.; the purpose of preventing COLI
or frightening their teams. ami the
i;.iiroad company fails TO perform that
uutS IL is negligence. for which the
company would DO liable for Injuries
'cTSui.inS IRON such negligence.
IL is unqucStionably one of tho Oh
lects of an ordinance OF a CITY orohih-
,lihS the sounding of the whistle on
locomotive engines within the limits OF
inc city to lessen the danger OF teaus
un me streets becoming frightened at
passing engines or trains. And while
IL is a matter OF common obsorvotion
oi winch courts will take judiciaI no
tlce. as counsel for defendant in error
contends. that bells are used on loco
.ilotiVe engines to lessen the danger to
travellers on a street or highway Of a
collision With an engine crossing the
street or highway. can it be said thar
they are intended or useful in warn
inG persons on the street or highway
t tnl. they may keep such Il distance
horses from becoming frightened at +,
passing engine? We think not.
Had there been a watchman ar
henry street crossing it could not
nave been reasonably expected OF him
10 stop defendant in error at n greater
distance from the crossing than * fcet
IN order TO prevent his horse from tax
ing fright ut the passing engine Ac-
corning TO his own statement. he v,a5
CRYING his horse quietly along the
street 100 FAR away from the crossing
70 make collision with the engine
possible, Had the man in charge of
me engine. seeing defendant in error
driving his horse quietly towards the
crossing. in no possible danger Of n col
lision. and no noise being made on the
engine other than that incident Ia =
running engine. Immediately proceeded
TO sound the whistle, at which the
morse took fright and injury TO de
icnoant In error ensued. il might have
n ~, reasonably claimed that plaintiff
IN error was guilty of negligence i'm
recklessly and unnecessarily sounding
tho engines whistle.
instruction No. S as asked for by
plaintiff in error simply told the Jury
that if they believed from the evidence
that an ordinance OF the city of Dan
Vile prohibited the sounding of tho
whistle upon the engine. which was
charged to have caused the accident in
question. at the Henry street crossing
or at the point designated as the
WnlStllnS post, the failure to blow such
whistle was not negligence. 1t cor
rectly propounded the law and should
nave been given as asked.
Fiaintif in errors instruction No.
refused was to the same effect and
should have been given.
1t follows from what has already
been said. that We are further OF opin-
ion that plaintiff in errors instruc-
tons. 3. 4. and correctly propoundcd
the law and should have been given.
Without these instructions 10 the
jury qualifying instruction No. ! given
Tor defendant in error. that instruction
was plainly erroneous in that IL left
the jury free to find a verdict for de-
PENDANT in error on the sole ground
that plainti fin error omitted to sound
the whistle on the engine when it an
preached tho Henry street crCfSins.
Reversed.