The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-03-10
United States Court of Appeals
Defines Rights of Moformen
and Pedestrians.
CARE MUST BE EXERCISED.
Judge Thayer Decides Citizens
Have Use of Right of Way I'm
der Proper Restrictions
Other Decisions.

! In the United States Court o. Appeals
Yesterday an opinion handed down by Judge
mayer. .oncurred n by Judge Caldwell.
defines the rights and privileges Of pedes-
TRANS and vehicles Upon street railway
tracks, and the duties Of motorrnen in run
ming their cars
The case was that CO Cora Hageman vs..
the Southern Electric Railway Company,
appealed BY the railway company. against
whom the lower court had given judgment
Tor damages for personal injuries
The evidence disclosed that in November.
$50, Cora Eagernan was driving north in
IHe Southern Electric Railway tracks 10
avoid Il mudhole IN the street. She was in
we front seat Of surrey and her TWO
sisters Wete in the rear seat II was after
dark Her sisters saw the headlight OF an
electric car approaching from the rear,
ABOUT so feet distant. and warned their
sister.
After continuing in the tracks about twen-
the plaintiff turned out Of the track, but too
late 10 avoid the car which was running
without any passengers, destined to be
was overturned and Miss Hageman sus-
tained severe injuries
NEGLIGENCE WAS CHARGED.
The plaintiff set forth that the Inotornan
was guilty Of negligence. and the defense
set UP the claim that the plaintiff was
guilty OF contributory negligence. This
was the main question at issue in the ap-
peal
Judge Thayer held that z mctorman is
under the same obligations to exercise or
binary care and prudence 80 as to avoid
collisions and inJurlng persons as these
persons are TO exercise care no: 10 get
in the way Of street cars SO as 10 be
run over and injured
He says pedestrians ard vehicles have a
right 10 cross the tracks OF street rail-
ways at any point besides the regular
crossings. and TO use the tracks for any
distance for a matter Of safety or conven-
Hence where they do rIiV n
te-fere with or obstTuct the passage OF the
cars. \ Tnotormsn, he says. has no right
titled 10 clear track 81 all times. and
that pedestrians or vehicles are DoUnd ak
their peru. no matter at what inconven-
fence, 10 get out Of the way.
HAD RIGHT TO TRACKS
He held that the plaintiff in this case
had right 10 use the street railway tracks
as a convenience in avoiding the mud
hole in the street and that the motor
man WAS guilty Of negligence in not tax
ing proper precautions 10 reduce the speed
Of his car when he saw the vehicle, SO
as 10 bring IL under such control that ne
could have avoided the collision.
Judge Sanborn nled a lengthy dissenting
opinion. He holds the trial Judge erred in
refusing TO allow the claim of contTlbutory
negligence on the plaintiffs part The
plaintiff he says. by the evidence. is shown
TO have seen the danger Of collision
when the car was so feet distant. the head
light, disclosing the approach OF the car.
when the motorTnan could not have seen
the vehicle The mOtorman could not have
turned out of the way. ana Il was the duty
OF the plaintiff to have turned out irnme-
diately on seeing the danger
He finds fault with the Instructions OF the
trial court. that even If the plaintiff had
seen the danger in time 10 avoid collision
by Immediately turning out Of the track.
she was entitled 10 recover damages. be-
cause the motorman was guilty OF negli
geace in failing to exercise ordinary pre-
cautions to control his car.
In the case Of the 81. Logis and San
Francisco Railroad Company vs.. the South
western Telephone and Telegraph Company
this decision was reversed. The telephone
company sought condemnation Of an ease
ment for poles. wires. etc. along the rail-
road campany's right of way between Fort
Smith and Huntington. Ark. The rail
road applied for perpetual injunction 10
restrain them from operating along the
right of way, to which the telephone COM
pany 6emurred. The demurrer was sus-
tainsd and the injunction dismissed. The
railroad company appealed
Judge Sanborn. who wrote the opinion,
reverses this decree and remands the case
with Instructions 10 issue injunction TO
remain in force until further order OF the
court.
Other opinions handed down were:
g. W. Lee ct al. VS.. Amanda Durham;
reversed and rernanded.
Kansas City Southern Railway Company
vs.. D. c. Moles: judgment for Moles af-
flrmed
Albert S. King, receiver for First Nation
al Bank Of Frankfort. kas., VS.. J. p. Pome-
roy; reversed and remanded.