The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1911-12-15
Defendants Motion in Personal Dam
age Suit Brought by Roashman
Was Sustained by
Court.
INTERESTING OPINION
Negligence Was Not Placed on Motor.
man Of Warsaw Interurbsn Car
Which Struck
Sleeper.

| The motion for an instructed verdict |
for the defendant in the case of Hor-
ace G. Rougham by his next friend,
Jennie Watkins VS.. keokuk and West ]
ern Illinois Electric Company was
sustained by Judge w. S. Hamilton in
the district court this morning at
O'Clock. The case was one for dam
ages in the sum of $4,000, the plain
tiff being injured by the Warsaw in
terurban car while sleeping on the
| tracks near McCready's Crossing.
Judge Hamilton handed down a very
interesting opinion in the case which
| follows:
! The defendant operates a line Of
interurban cars between Warsaw and
Keokuk. About two miles north from
Warsaw there is crossing called
McCreadys crossing, place where
defendants cars were want to stop
to take on or put off passengers.
The afternoon of August 10, 1909,
was clear. On that afternoon plaintiff
had walked up the track from War
saw He stopped at point thirty feet
uOIJll vi ILLS lulGlQluS, u6
says, to wait there for a car to Keo-
kuk. At this point, thirty feet north
of the crossing he sat down upon the
east rail of the track with his feet
outside of the rail, and went to sleep
in this position. He states that he
does not know whether or not he con-
tinued in this position. From this
point toward Warsaw the view of the
track was unobstructed East of the
crossing the track bends towards the
north and plaintiff placed himself on
the east rail of this bend. At dis
lance of one hundred and fifty feet,
thinner, the motorman of the de-
PENDANTS car, approaching from War
saw, saw an object on the rail which
he thought was q chicken, chickens
being frequently seen in this locality
He testified that there were weeds on
the outside of the rails and between the
ties at this place. When the car had
approached within thirty-five feet oil
the object he then saw that it was
: the ties, with his head against the
. rail, his feet towards the east. The
) car struck the plaintiff and he was
q injured. thinner was placed on the
\ stand by the plaintiff, but was moi
asked by the plaintiff what steps he
took, If any, to stop the car Plaintiff
n contends that as the car was want tc
= stop at this crossing, it was the duty
of the defendant motorman to be or
4 the lookout for passengers; but ever
81 if this is so there was no such duty
d towards one in the place and position
a in which plaintiff was. AS said by the
n court in Ayres VS.. Wabash Railwa,
'If this man had been walking OIL
standing on the track, he could have
been seen by the engineer in time, a
least, for danger signal to have
8 been given; but, lying as he was or
the west side of the track, he was mo-
= as conspicuous as a person walking OF
I standing would have been
The engineer was not chargeablt
with notice that a man was liable tt
be found lying on the track and there
fore the fact that the engine strucl
: the plaintiff in that position !" not il
itself sufficient to justify the infer
ence either that the engineer saw hin
: or that he failed to use ordinary car,
: to discover him in time The plain
tiff's testimony, aside from that of tn
:. engineer, does not undertake to es
- pressly show his attitude He sa
IL down on the west end of the cross tie
and there the stupefaction of intox
cation overcame him. and there tn