Faber v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Henne-pin county, Lochren, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The ease is stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Henne-pin county, Lochren, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The ease is stated in the opinion. Defendant’s fifth request, which was refused, was as follows: “In. this case the undisputed facts are that until plaintiff got within sixty or seventy feet of the track, he could not see the approaching train, by reason of intervening buildings, and the conformation of the ground; that after be got within sixty or seventy feet of the crossing, his view of the train was unobstructed; that at that time the coming train was in full sight,…
1Opinion of the Court
Dickinson, J.*
A recovery was sought in this action for injuries suffered by plaintiff from collision with a train of cars of the defendant, at its crossing of a street in the city of Minneapolis. The right to recover is based upon alleged negligence in the running of the train. The answer puts this in issue, and charges contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
1. The evidence upon the trial tended to show that the train was running at the rate of from 12 to 15 miles an hour. The court received in evidence, against defendant’s objection, an ordinance of the city which forbade the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Massoth v. President of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1876
3Cited by13 opinions
- Bolinger v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- State v. FreemanUtah Supreme Court · 1937
- Omaha Street Railway Co. v. LarsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
- Norfolk & Portsmouth Traction Co. v. Forrest's AdministratrixSupreme Court of Virginia · 1909
- Larkin v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.