Railway Co. v. Cullen
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Conway Circuit Court. Jordan E. Cravens, Judge. Henry Cullen, a boy sixteen years old, was struck by an engine while crossing the track of the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway Company. This suit was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by him. He testified in substance as follows: I was at Mr. Zindorf’s shop when he started to the depot. I came right along behind him.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Conway Circuit Court. Jordan E. Cravens, Judge. Henry Cullen, a boy sixteen years old, was struck by an engine while crossing the track of the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway Company. This suit was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by him. He testified in substance as follows: I was at Mr. Zindorf’s shop when he started to the depot. I came right along behind him. He ran around a box-car on the side track and across the main track right in front of me. I was crossing on the track when the engine struck me and knocked me ofif. A box-car was standing on the side…
1Opinion of the CourtCockrill, C. J.
Accident at —Contributory negligence. A traveler upon the highway is bound to exercise ordinary care and diligence at the intersection • i , . ... of a railway, to ascertain whether a train is approaching, in order to avoid collision with it. An ordinarily prudent man will use his eyes and ears to apprehend the danger, and, if the circumstances require, he will stop to enable him the better to do so. If the traveler neglects to do what an ordinarily prudent man would do under the circumstances, he is guilty of negligence. A failure to look and listen is therefore evidence of negligence on his…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Railroad Company v. HoustonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Schofield v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Fabbri v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Fletcher v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Cullen v. President of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway Co. v. BlewittSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. BatselSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- St. Louis, I. M. S. R. Co. v. GibsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad v. BaskinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.