Murphy v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

The only complaint is that the trial judge, when his attention was called thereto after the general charge, failed to instruct the jury that they might predicate actionable negligence upon the lack of gate or watchman at this-crossing, and even in the absence of statutory requirement therefor, because this' crossing was “especially dangerous” and “more than ordinarily hazardous.” Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Ives, 144 U. S. 408, 421, 12 Sup. Ct. 679, 684 (36 L. Ed. 485).

Passing by the lack of any definite assignment of error upon this point, and disregarding also any doubt as to the formal…