Frank v. St. Louis Transit Co.

(after stating the,facts). — We attach no importance to the failure of the motorman to ring the bell as his car drew near the plaintiff, granting that he *507failed to ring it. The only purpose the warning could have served was to attract the attention of the plaintiff to the approach of the north-bound car and the need of moving far enough from the east track to be out of danger. But according to his own statement this movement was impossible. He was doing his best already to drive across the east track, and if he had gotten across, would have been out of danger from both cars. Sounding a bell…