Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/114/615/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:14:21+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 114 › Schofield v. Chicago, M. & St.P. Railway Co.
The doctrine laid down in Railroad Co. v. Houston, 95 U. S. 697, cited and applied to the facts of this case.
Where a person, in a sleigh drawn by one horse on a wagon road approaching a crossing of a railroad track with which he was familiar could have seen a coming train during its progress through a distance of 70 rods from the crossing if he had looked from a point at any distance within 800 feet from the crossing, and was struck by the train at the crossing and injured, he was guilty of contributory negligence even though the train was not a regular one and was running at a high rate of speed and did not stop at a depot 70 rods from the crossing in the direction from which the train came and did not blow a whistle or ring a bell between the depot and the crossing.
On these facts it was proper for the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant.
This is an action brought by William R. Schofield against the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company in a state court of Minnesota and removed by the defendant into the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.
4,300 feet south of the depot, which was the whistling place for that depot. The wind was blowing strongly from north to south. The man in company with the plaintiff was killed by the accident, as was the horse. The plaintiff resided in the neighborhood, and was familiar with the crossing. After the accident, the men, horse, and sleigh were found on the west side of the railroad, showing that they had been struck as they were entering on the crossing. The train was not a regular one, and no train was due at the time of the accident; it was moving at a high rate of speed, it did not stop at the depot, and it gave no signal by blowing a whistle, or ringing a bell after it passed the depot.
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
had warning that a train was approaching; that the neglect of the train to blow a whistle or ring a bell between the depot and the crossing did not relieve the plaintiff from the duty of looking back at least as far as the depot before going on the track, and that in view of the duty incumbent on the plaintiff to look for a coming train before going so near to the track as to be unable to prevent a collision, and of the fact that he was at least 100 feet from the crossing when the train passed the depot, and could then have seen it if he had looked, and have avoided the accident by stopping until it had passed by, he was negligent in not looking.
"The failure of the engineer to sound the whistle or ring the bell, if such were the fact, did not relieve the deceased from the necessity of taking ordinary precautions for her safety. Negligence of the company's employees in these particulars was no excuse for negligence on her part. She was bound to listen and to look before attempting to cross the railroad track in order to avoid an approaching train and not to walk carelessly into the place of possible danger. Had she used her senses, she could not have failed both to hear and to see the train which was coming. If she omitted to use them and walked thoughtlessly upon the track, she was guilty of culpable negligence, and so far contributed to her injuries as to deprive her of any right to complain of others. If, using them, she saw the train coming and yet undertook to cross the track instead of waiting for the train to pass, and was injured, the consequences of her mistake and temerity cannot be cast upon the defendant."
The court added that an instruction to render a verdict for the defendant would have been proper.
These views concur with those laid down by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in Brown v. Milwaukee Railway Co., 22 Minn. 165, and are in accord with the current of decisions in the courts of the states.
justifiably draw from it, is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, so that such a verdict, if returned, must be set aside, the court is not bound to submit the case to the jury, but may direct a verdict for the defendant. Improvement Co. v. Munson, 14 Wall. 442; Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 116; Herbert v. Butler, 97 U. S. 319; Bowditch v. Boston, 101 U. S. 16; Griggs v. Houston, 104 U. S. 553; Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 109 U. S. 478; Anderson County Comm'rs v. Beal, 113 U. S. 227; Baylis v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 113 U. S. 316. This rule was rightly applied by the circuit court to the present case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.