Legal Opinion

Grant v. Chicago Etc. Ry. Co.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1927No. 6,000PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The evidence in this case shows that defendant's engine gave no warning of its approach to the crossing in question at the time of this accident, as required by the foregoing section. Appellant so testified. In the absence of contradictory testimony this certainly makes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of respondents. (Hunter v. Montana Cent. Ry. Co.,22 Mont. 525, 57 P. 140; Sprague v. Northern P. Ry. Co.,40 Mont. 481, 107 P. 412; DeAtley v. Northern P. Ry. Co.,42 Mont. 224, 112 P. 76.) Plaintiff had the right to assume that the defendant would give all warnings required by the…

2Cases cited94 opinions

  1. Casey v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Cotton v. Willmar & Sioux Falls Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  3. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus & Indianapolis Railway Co. v. HarringtonIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Escallier v. Great Northern Ry. Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Loudon v. ScottMontana Supreme Court · 1920

89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Herbert v. LankershimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Morton v. MooneyMontana Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Ulmen v. SchwiegerMontana Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Forte v. NolfiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  5. Rau v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1930

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API