Court Opinion

ID: 9809997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:37:56.669698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:19.014894
License: Public Domain

*5BbogdbN, J.,
dissenting: As I interpret the record, the place where plaintiff was injured was not a public crossing. It was no more than a walkway made by plaintiff and others for their own convenience. The defendant had done nothing to invite the public to cross its tracks at that point. Consequently, plaintiff and others using the tracks for their own convenience should be required to take the premises as they found it. There was no evidence that the defendant increased the hazard by active negligence while the plaintiff was upon the track and there were no pitfalls, mantraps or dangerous excavations. The defendant had merely sanded its track at a point where plaintiff and others had made a path for their own convenience. To impose liability upon the defendant for sanding its track at a point where pedestrians have used it for their own purposes, strikes me as an unreasonable burden.
Stacy, C. J., concurs in dissenting opinion.