Cole v. Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Douglas county: Chables Smith, Judge. In May, 1898, defendant maintained a flag station at what is known as South Range, a village of some thirty families. It had no depot building, but a platform on which freight was received and delivered, and a switch track about 1,500 feet in length.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Douglas county: Chables Smith, Judge. In May, 1898, defendant maintained a flag station at what is known as South Range, a village of some thirty families. It had no depot building, but a platform on which freight was received and delivered, and a switch track about 1,500 feet in length. The road was fenced generally, but a space was left unfenced at this station, a little more than 2,800 feet in length, commencing 580 feet south of the south switch, and ending 670 feet north of the north switch. The platform was located opposite the south end…
1Opinion of the CourtDodge, J.
Two questions are raised upon this appeal: First, was the locus in quo depot grounds as matter of law? *462Secondly, if not, is the defense of contributory negligence open to the defendant?
1. Where, as here, the grounds left unfenced and treated by a railway company as depot grounds are unusually extensive, and the locus in quo is outside of and beyond the switches and side tracks, and is not used as a place of access by the public or patrons, either for freight or passengers, and only for the passing or standing of trains, the question whether it is necessary for and used as depot grounds is…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Plunkett v. Minneapolis, Sault Ste. Marie & Atlantic Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1891
- Grosse v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Mills & Le Clair Lumber Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Fowler v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by4 opinions
- Schwind v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Burnham v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1909
- Briegel v. Union Pacific RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1924
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. SevcekNebraska Supreme Court · 1904