Rusczck v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.
So far as the special verdict is concerned, the judgment in plaintiff’s favor in each of the two causes of action must be based upon the conclusion reached by the jury and approved by the trial court that there was negligence by defendant’s flagman at the west end of the crossing in his failure both to signal and to warn the driver of the automobile of the danger from the approaching train from the south at the easterly end of the crossing, because there was an express finding, not challenged by plaintiff, that there was no negligence in the crew of the train striking the automobile and no…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Stone v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. CalhounSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Davis v. SchroederCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1923
- Puhr v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
- Roth v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Butts v. WardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Hendley v. Chicago & Nortwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
- Felix v. SoderbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Byerly v. ThorpeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
- Crowley v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.