New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.
The deceased had been familiar with this crossing for some time in daily trips with the same truck. The accident happened on a clear, quiet day, and there was no testimony showing that the attention of de*205ceased was then attracted away from the crossing. There was testimony that as the train approached from the south the whistle was blown so as to be audible to some in the immediate neighborhood, and although a failure to sound the whistle was alleged in the complaint no question concerning it was submitted to the jury.
Several questions are presented and argued on this appeal. We deem it…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Puhr v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
- Roth v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
- Bahlert v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- Twist v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
- Gordon v. Illinois Central RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rusczck v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
- Finkelstein v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Haddon v. Savannah Electric & Power Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
- Dean v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
- Koscielski v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1931