Wait v. Bennington & Rutland R. R.
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action on the case for negligence. Plea, the general issue, trial by jury. Yerdict for the defendant. The plaintiff’s testimony tended to show that, on the 20th day of February, 1883, he was with his team on a public highway in the town of Shaf tsbury, and that his team then became unmanageable and escaped from his control, running to a considerable distance on the highway.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case for negligence. Plea, the general issue, trial by jury. Yerdict for the defendant. The plaintiff’s testimony tended to show that, on the 20th day of February, 1883, he was with his team on a public highway in the town of Shaf tsbury, and that his team then became unmanageable and escaped from his control, running to a considerable distance on the highway. When they arrived at a point in said highway, where the railroad of the defendant crosses the same at grade, 1ns team left the highway and passed on to the railroad -track of the defendant, going up the same…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Taut, J.
The questions in this case arise upon the charge ; the objections made to it are, first, that it “ was misleading, as it placed the statute before the jury, as a means for the protection of passengers, and submittted it to the jury to say whether the ■defendant had fairly done its duty to that end and purpose.”' The court told the jury that the object of requiring cattle-guards-was undoubtedly two-fold, the safety of passengers and the safety of animals straying upon the track, and that these objects must be borne in mind when inquiring whether…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Midland Valley R. Co. v. BryantSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Martin v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1914
- Musgrave v. Southern Pacific Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1937