Haven v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

violation of law. effect. I. Appellee defends the action of the trial court with the claim that it was, as matter of law, not guilty of any negligence, and that, as matter of law, the negligence of plaintiff contributed to the injury suffered by him. It was error to <jirect verdict against plaintiff if either of these defenses should have been submitted to a jury.

The plaintiff was struck by a car, moving up behind him as he was walking. We think a jury could find that defendant violated both statute and ordinance law by failing to ring the bell, or to give plaintiff other warning that the car…