Clark v. Payne
North Dakota Supreme Court
From the judgment of the District court of Ward county, Lowe, J., defendant appeals. “For the violation of a statute to constitute actionable negligence the person suing must ordinarily belong to that class of persons for whose benefit the statute was passed.” Indiana & Chicago Railway Co. v. Neal, 166 Ind. 458; 9 Am. & Eng. Ann.
Read the full summary
From the judgment of the District court of Ward county, Lowe, J., defendant appeals. “For the violation of a statute to constitute actionable negligence the person suing must ordinarily belong to that class of persons for whose benefit the statute was passed.” Indiana & Chicago Railway Co. v. Neal, 166 Ind. 458; 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 424. “A signal of warning to be given by a train approaching a highway crossing is not for the benefit of a trespasser or mere licensee on the railroad company’s track or right of way, and that a failure to comply with the statute will not entitle the person…
1Opinion of the CourtChristianson, J.
On the 26th day of July, 1919, Grant Clark, minor son of P. M. Clark, the administrator, who is plaintiff in this action, was killed while attempting to board or ride upon a moving freight train in the railroad yards of the defendant in the city of Ken-mare in this state. At the time of his death, said Grant Clark was about 8j£ years old. For some days prior to July 26, 1919, the employees of the defendant had been engaged in constructing a sewer from the lake front on which the railroad yards were located in a northerly direction, and under the several tracks of the Soo Railway Company'in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Hayes v. Michigan Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Funk v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Rosse v. St. Paul & Duluth Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- Barrett v. MagnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Moum v. MaerckleinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972
- Bentley v. Oldetyme Distillers, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1941