Legal Opinion

Sweeo v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 11, 1924PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoerfler, J.

The defendant’s negligence in operating the train at a speed in excess of twelve miles per hour immediately preceding the accident is found by the jury and is amply sustained by the evidence. The defendant was also found guilty of negligence by failure to keep the bell ringing continuously while passing over the last twenty rods before the collision.

The trial judge stated in his opinion:.“There is some doubt whether the evidence sustains the finding of failure to ring the bell, and if that were the only ground of negligence found, the court would not be disposed to let the verdict stand…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Koester v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Bahlert v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Swalm v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1910

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Seligman v. HammondWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Roth v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Rusczck v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Van Dunk v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Setosky v. Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927

5 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