The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1926-07-12

Plaintiff and Appellant,
vs..
William O'Rourke,
Defendant and Respondent.
!. The right OF procedure under
q city ordinance giving right Of way
at street Intersections to the vehicle
approaching from the right is not
absolute. Il must be exercised con-
sistently with the safety and con-
venience of others and arises only
as against those vehicles approach
ing from the left which, all having
due regard to other rules of the
road. will not first pass over the
intersection.
2. The driver of q vehicle APP
preaching street intersection has
the right to assume that others like
wise approaching the intersection will
observe the rules of the road and
to act upon that assumption In pro-
cecding across the intersection.
Appeal from the district court Of
Ward County, Hon. John C. Lowe,
Judge.
Action for damages for negligence.
From an order for judgment for the
defendant notwithstanding the
verdict and from the judgment
entered thereon, plaintiff appeals.
REVERSED,
Opinion Of the Court by Nuessle, J.
McGee & Coss of Minot, Attorneys
for Plaintiff and Appellant.
L. j. Palda, Jr., C. d. Aaker, b C. f.
Brace. all Of Minot, Attorneys for
Defendant and Respondent.
WARD COUNTY
Isaac O. johnson,
Plaintiff and Respondent
Minneapolis, st. Paul and
Sault Ste. Marie Rail-
way Company, q corpor-
alton,
Defendant and Appellant
Syllabus:
/. An employee in order to re-
cover damages, in an action against
an employer for injuries under the
Federal Employer Liability Act ~
S. Comp. Stats. Sec. 1867, ct seq.)
must allege and prove: % The
existence Of some duty on the part
of the employers toward the EN-.
ployec. (2) A failure to discharge
that duty; and (3) Injury proxi.
mately resulting from such failure
2. Whether any duty Is raised m
the part of an employer toward IN
employee depends upon the circum
stances of each particular case, and
an allegation in . pleading Of thu
existence Of such duty without {
statement Of the facts out Of which
it arose is q mere conclusion Of Law
and is not admitted on demurrer
3. While, generally, negligence
and proximate cause are question:
for the jury. they become question:
of law when the facts are undispute(
and reasonable men in the exercis,
of reason and judgment can draw
but one inference from them.
4. Proximate cause is that cause
which, a. o natural and continu0u
sequence, unbroken by any controll
| ing intervening cause, produces tn,
injury, and without which It woul,
not have occurred.
s. Failure of . railroad compan!
to comply with requirements imposed
junder the Safety Appliance Act
~. S. Comp. States. Sec. 06Q5, ct seq.
with respect to cars used by It,
negligence per Sc, and II such neg
ligence is the proximate cause Q
injuries received by an employed
The go, ce.mpany'' liability therefor
9. Held, for reasons stated in tn
opinion. that the alleged ne4lixenc
set forth in the complaint was no
the proximate cause Of the injurie
on account Of which the plaintiff
seeks q recovery.
Appeal from the district court Q
Ward County, Hon. John C. Low
Judge.
Action for damages brought BY tn
lplaintiff under the Federal Employ
ers' Liability Act. u. s. Conn
Stats. Sec. 6657, ct seq.) From q
order of the district court over
ruling its demurrer to the amende
complaint. defendant appeals.
REVERSED,
Opinion Of the Court by Nuessle.
! F. h. Sinkler, G.. o. Brokke, IN
Humphrey. Barton, all of Miuo
i Attorneys for Plaintiff and Re-
L. J. Paida, u, G. D. Aaker, nm
i C.sE. brace, MI OF Ai9ot. John
Palmer. Of Minneapolts. Mime
sofa. Of Counsel, Attorneys ia
Defendant and Appellant.
FROM CAaS COUNTY
Hugo. Stern, sole trader
doing business under the
name Of Globe Clothing
Company,
Plaintiff and Responder
W.
IMasae Hass and Joseph
Defendan
Appeliau
|syllahss:
! /. Plaintiff and dsfendant We