Renwick v. . New York Central R.R. Co.
New York Court of Appeals
If, on. approaching a crossing by a train of cars, no signal be given, as the ringing of the bell or the blowing of the whistle, by the agents or servants of the company, it is guilty of negligence; and where there is conflicting evidence on that point, the question is to be submitted to the jury; and their finding therein is conclusive.
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
Upon the question of the Defendants’ negligence in this case, it is impossible to maintain that there was no conflicting evidence. If no signal was given, from the train, of its appi’oach to the crossing where the injury occurred, either by the ringing of the bell or the sounding of the whistle, the Defendants are chargeable with negligence.
How, upon the question whether the bell was rung or not, it is undeniably true that considerable evidence was given on both sides. On the part of the Plaintiff, both he and his daughter swore that they listened for the train as they approached the…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Van SteinburgMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Tanner's v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
- Davenport v. . RuckmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Wilcox v. Rome, Watertown, & Ogdensburgh RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Grey v. Mobile Trade Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1876
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.